Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: Once again I remind the House that hon. Members called to ask a supplementary question should ask only one supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Double Glazing

Mr. McQuarrie: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to require the compulsory double glazing of all glass used externally on future building projects; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): No, Sir. Designers and builders are free to use double glazing where they consider it appropriate. We have no reason to restrict their freedom in this matter.

Mr. McQuarrie: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that there is an urgent need to conserve energy and that legislation that made compulsory the use of double glazing would assist public energy conservation and the glass and glazing industry, which is seriously affected by the present economic situation?

Mr. Finsberg: Possibly, Sir. However, we believe that the building regulations are too blunt an instrument for such fine tuning.

Mr. Sever: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he will receive much support for extending the use of double glazing from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy? As the hon. Member

for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) has indicated, there is considerable feeling that if such measures and similar ones were taken, energy conservation would be considerable. Will the hon. Gentleman consider calling for a report on the validity of the argument contained in the question?

Mr. Finsberg: I think that what I have said covers the point. If people think that double glazing will benefit them, there is no reason why they should not double glaze and make fuel savings.

Housing Completions

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses, in both the private and public sectors, he now expects to be completed in the current financial year.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimate of housing starts for 1980 in the public and private sector, respectively.

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many public sector housing starts there have been since April 1980, compared with the equivalent period last year.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The latest figures for England are as follows. Between April and September there were 25,500 starts and 48,000 completions in the public sector and 47,400 starts and 57,000 completions in the private sector. Between April and September 1979, there were 39,300 starts in the public sector. Completions in the rest of 1980–81 in both the public and private sectors will depend on the rate of progress on dwellings already under construction.

Mr. Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that those figures mean that this year there will be the lowest number of houses built in Britain for 30 years in both the private and the public sectors, and that there is a great danger that existing houses will become slums faster than they can be replaced or modernised under his regime?

Mr. Heseltine: This will be a year of low figures for housing in both the public and the private sectors. In many ways I


find that as disturbing as the hon. Gentleman does. However, the reduction in public sector housing has been going on for some years.

Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when translated into human terms, these figures will mean acute hardship and misery for thousands and thousands who will not be able to be rehoused? Bearing in mind how much the right hon. Gentleman has undermined and sabotaged housing, is he not ashamed to hold his present position?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is as aware as I am that the reduction in public sector housing is continuing along much the same lines as under the previous Government.

Mr. Dubs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the dismay and bitterness that is felt by housing associations that are facing a reduction of about 60 per cent. in loan approvals? Is he able to say something to encourage the good work of the housing associations that are faced with such a catastrophic decline in their finances?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are expecting to see an expenditure of £420 million through the Housing Corporation and housing associations this year. By no means can that be described in the sensational language that the hon. Gentleman chooses to use.

Mr. Steen: Are the Government financing the printing and circulation of the cards that have been produced by the Liverpool housing associations and supported by the Housing Corporation? Will he say something about the use of public expenditure for this purpose?

Mr. Heseltine: Although I do my best to keep abreast of what is going on in my Department I should require notice of that specific question. If my hon. Friend lets me have a look at the cards in his hand, I shall examine them carefully later.

Mr. Alton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I know of the concern of many housing association tenants in Liver-pool, and I know that many people live in houses that have no inside sanitation? Will the Secretary of State tell us what hope there is for Merseyside housing associations?

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that what used to be regarded as the third arm of housing is becoming the dead arm of housing as a result of his policies?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must know that the only hope of improving housing is to get real growth in the national economy. That is the objective of the Government's policy.

Mr. Major: When my right hon. Friend listens to strictures from the Opposition about the housing programme, will he bear in mind that far more dwellings would be available for occupation if the Opposition removed their dogmatic objections to shorthold leases?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. The House might like to know that, according to the latest figures, there are about 100,000 empty local authority accommodation units, which could be used for those who are looking for houses.

Mr. Kaufman: Why does the Secretary of State constantly fiddle the figures that he presents to the House? Is it not a fact that local authority starts in England for the first six months of this financial year equal 15,070, and that the total is falling all the time? Does he not accept that in September, the latest month for which figures are available, there were 1,900 starts, which represent an annual rate of 22,800? That is by far the worst total for generations. Will the total reach 30,000—which would be appalling enough—or will it fall to 22,000 as a result of his disgraceful policies?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman has accused me of fiddling the figures. In 1974–75 the figure for housing capital expenditure was £4·2 billion. In 1978–79 expenditure was down to £2·154 billion. If that is not a reduction, I do not know what is. If the right hon. Gentleman were to apply himself to the figures as opposed to rhetoric, he would find that the reduction in my programmes for capital account on housing is proceeding at a slower rate than the average for the last four years of the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if local authorities went back to the worst figure under the


last Labour Government they would offer thanks when they compared them with what the right hon. Gentleman is asking them to do? Will the right hon. Gentleman for once give a straight answer in this House? Will the starts reach 30,000, or will they continue at the present annual rate of 22,800?

Mr. Heseltine: I shall certainly give the right hon. Gentleman a straight answer. During the two years for which I have been responsible for housing capital expenditure, it has been reduced by 14 per cent. per annum. During each of the last four years of the Labour Government it went down, on average, by 15 per cent.

National Parks

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the operation of the system of national parks and their supervising boards.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): In the main, yes. For that reason I have decided not to proceed with a review of national parks administration in 1981, nor with a wider review of the designation system as suggested by the Countryside Review Committee. But I propose to consult on the proposition that district councils should have a statutory right of representation on national park boards and committees.

Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Peak District national park board, which has no directly elected representatives on it, is insensitive to the needs and wishes of my constituents, and arrogant in its dealings? Is he further aware that my constituents will examine this proposal with great interest?

Mr. Monro: I note what my hon. Friend has said. I am sorry that he offers such strictures about his national park administration. My original reply sought to make the point that local people living in the national parks should be given more say in national parks deliberations. At the end of the day, that will lead to better administration of those parks.

Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister realise that his announcement will be

applauded by many of those in the amenity world, who felt that the proposals put forward would have led to the desecration of many of the most attractive parts of the countryside? Is he aware that we support him when he says that he is generally satisfied with the work of national parks?

Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I know that they will be widely noted in the world of conservation.

Mr. Parris: Is my hon. Friend aware that any change involving district council representation on the park planning boards would be greatly welcomed by my constituents, who feel the need for such local representation?

Mr. Monro: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Changes will occur in the two board areas of the Peak District and the Lake District. There may be an additional member for the Peak District, and two additional members for the Lake District. If consultations go ahead as I anticipate, district councils will have statutory representation.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire. West (Mr. Parris) refers to the fact that access has been gained—as a result of initiative and expenditure from the funds of the Peak District national park and that that access has been applauded by the Central Council for Physical Recreation, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Countryside Commission and the ramblers and mountaineering associations? Does the Minister recognise that much-needed access has been guaranteed for climbers, recreationists and campers? The Minister's original answer needs to be discussed. He has put aside not only the Sandford report but the response to it. Is he aware that it is important that the national interest should predominate where national parks are concerned?

Mr. Monro: I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. We considered the Sandford committee report very carefully, since it is valuable. However, we have made our decision and we shall not proceed with that review.

Elderly and Disabled Persons (Housing)

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps is he taking to protect housing for the elderly and disabled, in the light of the recent moratorium on all further local authority capital expenditure on housing.

Mr. Heseltine: I am considering the future operation of the moratorium in the light of figures provided by local authorities and will make an announcement in due course. I have already clarified the position on adaptations for the benefit of the disabled.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the survey that was carried out by Age Concern, which showed that 28 per cent. of those aged over 75 would like sheltered housing? Does he accept that the present amount of sheltered housing is completely inadequate? Does he further accept that the number of old people is rising rapidly? Given the cuts that he has imposed on the Housing Corporation and the fact that local authorities have slashed their programmes, does he accept that his moratorium will make the position even worse?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the moratorium is not designed to secure cuts in the existing budgets, but to ensure that we do not exceed the cash limits for housing. I sympathise with the view—that has been very much part of our approach—that there is a need to concentrate more of our available resources on such groups.

Mr. Marlow: Does the moratorium on capital expenditure in public housing extend to capital expenditure on other public buildings, such as leisure centres and civic centres, which local authorities may wish to put up? If not, does the Secretary of State have any plans in that direction?

Mr. Heseltine: The moratorium does not extend to other capital programmes, because they are under a different heading, and do not come within the controls of the HIP allocation system. Next year there will be a different capital controls discipline, as provided in the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill. That means that there will be an overall one-block approach to capital expenditure,

which will have the effect suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Does the Secretary of State remember the promise that he gave to the House on 6 August, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland, about the protection of old people's accommodation? Given that not a single old person's house in Glasgow, Edinburgh or the Borders region has been protected, does he consider that that promise has been fulfilled?

Mr. Heseltine: I have every faith in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland fulfilling any promises that I make on his behalf.

Mr. Best: Although I bitterly regret the moratorium, may I ask my right hon. Friend to remind the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) that in 1976 the previous Labour Government imposed a moratorium for precisely the same reasons and that they imposed cuts of £140 million in the same year on future years' housing allocations?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will remember how unfair it is to try to remind the Labour Party of any of the things that it did when it was in government.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does not the Secretary of State see something cruel in having more than 1 million families on the waiting list at a time when unemployment in building and related trades has risen to 300,000, with worse to come?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one third of the people on waiting lists are already housed in local authority houses.

Housing Act 1980

Mr. Best: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action has been taken by local authorities following the right to buy given to council tenants by the Housing Act.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): Since 3 October 1980, virtually every local authority in England and Wales has been implementing the right to buy.

Mr. Best: What advice can my hon. Friend give to the tenants of Greenwich council, whose Labour councillors have


indicated that they seek to frustrate the law by not processing the forms for the right to buy?

Mr. Stanley: I assure my hon. Friend that I deplore the action of any council that seeks to deny the rights of tenants given to them by this House. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said during the proceedings on the Housing Bill that he would deplore defiance of the law I look forward to his joining in the condemnation of any such action by Greenwich.

Mr. Heffer: Will not the Government's moratorum on building, combined with the sale of council houses, lead to longer lists of those waiting to rent council houses, more overcrowding and greater problems? Is the Minister aware that in Liverpool the situation is even worse, because the local authority, Liberal and Tory combined, is not building council houses for rent? Is it not clear that the Government's policy must change so that those on waiting lists will have an opportunity in the future to have a home to live in?

Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Gentleman will recall, the House, by a substantial majority, decided to give 6 million tenants the right to buy. The Government do not propose to change that policy.

Mr. Heffer: The Tories do not care about people without houses.

Mr. Lyell: Is my hon. Friend aware of the difficulties for my constituents that arise as they seek to buy their council houses from the fact that stamp duty on those purchases is being charged on the pre-discount value rather than the post-discount price? What steps is he taking to discuss the matter with his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury?

Mr. Stanley: Following a number of representations on the matter, we are having discussions with our right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury.

Homeless Households

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the increase in the numbers of homeless households as

a result of his moratorium on building new council houses.

Mr. Stanley: I do not consider that any such estimate could reliably be made.

Mrs. Short: I suppose that the Minister feels that it would be too damning for the Government's policy to make an estimate. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) referred to the increase in the number of families waiting for local authority housing. It is almost 1¼ million. About 8,000 of those are in Wolverhampton, which represents an increase of 1,500—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Lady ask a question, then we shall all feel happier?

Mrs. Short: What response is the Minister making to the AMA's estimate of the shortage of houses in the next five years? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am not reading. Is the Minister aware that the estimate of expenditure by local authorities for housing homeless families in bed and breakfast and similar accommodation is over £15 million a year? Is it not crazy to spend that money in that way?

Mr. Stanley: One of the most constructive responses that can be made is for local authorities to address themselves to the problem of vacant dwellings. On the latest figures that we have from local authorities, 23,000 local authority dwellings have been vacant for more than one year. Of that number, one third—some 8,000—are dwellings in six Labour authorities—Manchester, Islington, Hackney, Southwark, Lambeth and Camden.

Mr. John Wells: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that those authorities that have curbed their expenditure and are currently engaged on a programme of new building of housing for the elderly only and have contracts in hand will not be affected by the moratorium?

Mr. Stanley: I understand the concern of authorities which, on their estimates, are underspending their allocation, but I am afraid that this afternoon I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend has said to the effect that he will wish to make a statement in due course.

Mr. Dobson: If the Minister cannot make an estimate, does he accept the


estimate of the Tory-controlled London Boroughs Association that, if his policies continue for a further five years, they will lead to an increase of almost ½ million in the shortfall of houses in this country?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman represents a London constituency. I am sure that he is as concerned as I am about the number of empty local authority dwellings in London.

Mr. Durant: Will my hon. Friend clarify the position concerning the housing association movement? Will he confirm that there is no cut in the total budget this year but only a control of the overspending that was forecast?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The allocation made by my right hon. Friend in February of £420 million is entirely unchanged. There is £420 million to spend. Contrary to certain reports, the level of housing association improvements approved in the 12 months to September is the second highest on record.

Mr. Hattersley: May I return to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson), which the Minister did not even attempt to answer? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a variety of estimates have been made by various local authority bodies about the net shortfall of houses in 1984 and the shortfall between houses available and families needing houses, in part the result of an increase in family formation? Do the Government have a figure about how many houses will be needed by the time this Parliament comes to an end?

Mr. Stanley: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, when the previous Government made such calculations they described them as being highly speculative. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the range of policies that we have put forward both to increase utilisation of existing stock and to bring forward new accommodation, such as shorthold. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is not helping by his commitment to repeal the shorthold legislation.

Mr. Hattersley: Do the Government have a figure on what the net shortage will be when this Parliament comes to an end?

Mr. Stanley: As my right hon. Friend has said on many occasions, we regard such an exercise as fairly speculative.

Listed Buildings

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to bring forward any proposals to change the procedures for listing buildings of architectural or historic interest, or to discourage further the demolition of buildings of interest not on the statutory list.

Mr. Heseltine: My Department's listing procedures are currently under the comprehensive review which I set in hand following the demolition of the Firestone factory.
I have already introduced certain changes to provide wider protection for buildings of the 1914 to 1939 period. At my request, the Historic Buildings Council recently recommended criteria for the selection of inter-war buildings and identified some 50 buildings for immediate addition to the statutory list. I have accepted the HBC's recommended criteria and have already listed 12 of the 50 buildings. Others will follow shortly.
Only a small number of inter-war buildings have been listed in recent years. The criteria that I have now adopted will make it possible to preserve a far wider range of buildings from this very varied period.

Mr. Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend accept that I am deeply grateful to him for that statement and for his recent actions to save our architectural heritage? Does he agree that, no matter how subjective the judgment, we should decide as a nation which buildings should be listed and then concentrate our limited resources on conserving excellence rather than make a blanket attempt to promote mediocrity?

Mr. Heseltine: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's views. I am grateful to him for his kind words about the initiative that I have taken.

Mr. Beith: Is the Secretary of State familiar with the recent literature documenting the losses to our fine heritage of Nonconformist chapels? Is he satisfied that his Department has enough of the best examples of such buildings listed at


sufficiently high levels? Is energetic action being taken to see that the best examples remain with us?

Mr. Heseltine: For the inter-war period churches are a specific category to be considered, but many Nonconformist chapels belong to an earlier era. If the hon. Gentleman is aware of any examples of conspicuous architecture that are under threat, I should like to know about them.

Mr. John Page: May the voice of a Philistine be heard? My right hon. Friend says that he has had recommended 50 further factories built between 1914 and 1939 for addition to the statutory list. What, then, is the total?

Mr. Heseltine: If I were looking for the voice of a Philistine I would never look to my hon. Friend. I hear a great many Philistine voices from the Labour Benches. Let me clarify what I said. The HBC provided me with a list of 50 buildings, not 50 factories—though factories could be included in the listing. It is the first list of its sort applying to the inter-war period. Other buildings will be added subsequently.

Ordnance Survey

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for giving the Ordnance Survey a more enterprising and independent status.

Mr. Heseltine: I am studying various possibilities but have no firm proposals at this stage.

Mr. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Ordnance Survey has an historic and successful record, is a great British institution and that, like the Government Front Bench, it may from time to time need enlightenment and reform, but basically it needs conserving?

Mr. Heseltine: There can be no question but that I should agree with my hon. Friend that the Ordnance Survey has fulfilled a valuable role in our history and has a crucial role in future.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the talk in some quarters of giving the Ordnance Survey a more enterprising and independent status is simply a euphemism for allowing looters to take the more profitable

parts of the organisation? Is he aware that the whole of the Ordnance Survey is necessary for the public interest and will he refute any suggestion that it might be carved up?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman would expect me to look at all the options before rejecting them. That is what I am doing. I am having wide consultations on the various alternatives that might be before me. I am particularly looking at the Serpell report on this matter which was commissioned by the previous Government.

Mr. Forman: As a keen walker, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give the maximum assurance to the House that nothing will be done to the excellent Ordnance Survey which would detract from the high quality of its work which is unparalleled throughout the world?

Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend has my absolute assurance that I recognise the standard and quality that has been associated with the Ordnance Survey and I shall do nothing to undermine that.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have had dozens of letters from Ordnance Survey employees who live in my constituency expressing their desire to remain within the public service and their grave concern at the possible threat to the service that they give to the public if alternative arrangements are made? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that before he makes any decision he will have full consultation with the trade unions and staff associations involved?

Mr. Heseltine: Yes.

Mr. Adley: May I also declare an interest as a customer of the Ordnance Survey and say that I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell)? I too have many constituents who work for the Ordnance Survey. The word "unique" is one of the most overworked words in the English language, but the Ordnance Survey is a unique organisation. Will my right lion. Friend bear that in mind in any proposal that he makes for its future?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will have heard me refer to the high quality


of work with which the Ordnance Survey has been associated.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition believe that the standards of excellence of the Ordnance Survey must be maintained at all costs but cannot be maintained if the surveying side is to be divorced from the profitable publications? Is he aware that we need to maintain the service for the Royal Navy's hydrographic survey and maintain the principle of universal coverage which the Ordnance Survey continues? Is he further aware that we shall resist any attempts to divide the organisation between the non-profitable surveying sector and the profitable publishing sector?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can have looked carefully at the underlying figures of the Ordnance Survey. If he had, he would not find it so easy to talk about significant areas of profit. I can assure him that they are not to be found. Let me make clear that I will do nothing that is not preceded by full consultation. I will certainly continue to hold discussions. I have reached no conclusions, but I believe it is right that all such organisations should be subjected to political scrutiny and that a wide-ranging debate about their activities should continue.

Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has now completed his review of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.

Mr. Stanley: The review of the Act and the associated code of guidance is still in progress. We hope to announce our conclusions fairly soon.

Mr. Atkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the review has been going on for 20 months? Will he assure the House that he will bring forward amendments to the Act to ensure that those without a local connection will no longer be allowed to overtake those who have had their names on local housing waiting lists, often for many years?

Mr. Stanley: As my hon. Friend is aware, the homeless persons legislation is a difficult and sensitive area. At least one local authority association wished to

revise its views after its original submission and I think that it was right that we took into consideration the latest views from the local authority associations. I assure my hon. Friend that the aspect that he raised is within the compass of the review.

Mr. Hattersley: Is the Minister aware that some of us believe that if any changes are needed in this necessary and compassionate Act they should be to strengthen its provisions and not to weaken them? Will he help our future discussions by telling us now, or publishing subsequently, the net effect of the Act on authorities such as, say, Bournemouth and how many houses they have been required to provide that they would not have been required to provide had the Act not existed?

Mr. Stanley: There is fairly extensive publication of statistics about the operation of the homeless persons legislation and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that most of the statistics that he wants are available there. If I can give him any further assistance, I shall gladly try to do so.

Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Act's obligations on a local authority such as Hillingdon, which has Heathrow airport in its boundaries, result in local people believing that foreigners are jumping the housing waiting list—whatever my hon. Friend or Labour Members may say? Will he take into account that that is bad for community relations and that the only way that the problem can be avoided is if the Act is amended to confine the obligation on local authorities to rehouse those with a local connection in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Stanley: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), the question of the local connection is one that we have in mind in considering the review.

Housing (Starts and Expenditure)

Mr. Straw: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is (a) the estimated number of housing starts in the public sector for 1980–81 and (b) housing capital expenditure for 1980–81; and what were the corresponding figures for starts and expenditure, at constant prices, for 1976–77.

Mr. Heseltine: Provision for gross capital expenditure on housing in the public sector in 1980–81 is £2,040 million at 1979 survey prices. The corresponding figure for 1976–77 was £3,517 million. In April to September 1980 there were 25,500 public sector starts in England, compared with 84,700 in the same period in 1976. Public sector starts in 1980–81 will depend largely on the proportion of their allocations which local authorities have decided to devote to new building and on how far we are able to allow them to make any further commitments this year.

Mr. Straw: In the light of those figures, which show that in 1976—the year of the Labour Government's moratorium—there was the second highest number of starts in any year during the 1970s and the fact that those starts were four times the number likely to be achieved by the present Government, may we have an end to the wilful and palpable falsehoods from the Government suggesting that their housing policy bears any relationship to the Labour Government's policy? Will the Secretary of State for once have the honesty to admit that his housing policy is to abandon local authority housing as we have known it in the past 25 years?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not want to embarrass the hon. Member, but he is right to take the public sector housing starts in Britain in 1976, when they totalled 170,000. The next year the Labour Government reduced them to 130,000, the year after they were reduced to 107,000 and the year after that they were reduced to 80,000.

Mr. Michael Morris: Will my right hon. Friend also remind the House that not once in the five years of the Labour Government did the performance reach the objectives laid down in public expenditure White Papers? Would it not be helpful if my right hon. Friend reminded us that district authorities that sell assets can bolster their HIP allocation?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that the Labour Party's performance never met—or did not usually do so—the figures that it put forward. I have never expected the Labour Party's performance to live up to its promises.

Mr. Leadbitter: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that, in addition to the national picture, which is tragedy enough, in my constituency we have five starts this year, with over 2,000 people on the housing list, and that in the critical year 1981–82 there is the possibility of only 25 completions? The local authority has asked the right hon. Gentleman more than once if he will discuss with it the nature of its problem. Why does he persist in refusing?

Mr. Heseltine: If the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given are a true reflection of what is happening in his constituency—and I am not suggesting otherwise—they mean only that the local authority concerned has decided to spend its substantial HIP allocation somewhere else.

Council Housing (Moratorium)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will arrange to meet representatives of the construction industry to discuss the effects of his moratorium on the building of council houses.

Mr. Heseltine: I met the Group of Eight last week.

Mr. Canavan: At the next meeting will the Secretary of State explain why he is crippling the construction industry when there are thousands of families on the waiting lists for a home and 300,000 construction workers on the dole? In view of the strong possibility, especially after yesterday's CBI conference, that such a meeting might end up in a bare-knuckle fist fight with the captains of British industry, will Tarzan be taking along the Mace to defend himself?

Mr. Heseltine: It is apparent that the CBI is trying to take lessons from the Labour Party conferences. I do not need to wait until the next time, because I explained to the Group of Eight exactly what were the difficulties for the Government in trying to find the cash to fund the level of pay increases for which the last Government were responsible as a result of the Clegg commission. As long as we have to meet bills of that sort, capital programmes are likely to come under pressure.

Mr. Squire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, as the question referred to the


moratorium, that it is of no long-term advantage to the construction industry, or to the homeless or the less fortunate, for Governments, national or local, to live beyond their budgets?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will remember that the Labour Party when in power was continually forced to come back to a realisation of that, usually at the behest of an outside organisation that forced reality on it. The truth is that its attempts to increase public expenditure by going in for extra borrowing, which is what it is now suggesting I should advise my colleagues to do, led to declining levels of public expenditure in real terms whilst it was in office.

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what the Group of Eight, including the trade unions, said to him? Did its members say, as some of them have been saying in the press, that the Government's policy in relation to construction was lunacy? Is it not time the Government recognised that if they go on as they are the construction industry will come to a total halt?

Mr. Heseltine: What the Group of Eight said to me, with which I have great sympathy, was that broadly speaking the country was increasing its consumption faster than its wealth, and that as a consequence it was squeezing its capital programmes. If the House has not realised that, it has not studied what happened in the last few years under the Labour Government.

Mr. Dover: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many building companies do not mind the moratorium on council house building? Does he realise that they would prefer to be building housing for sale, as well as factories and investments that pay for themselves, instead of uneconomic housing?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that there is much in what my hon. Friend says, but the one thing that the Group of Eight impressed upon me above all else was that it wanted to see the levels of interest rates brought down. That cannot be done unless we control public expenditure.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Ron King, president

of the House-Builders Federation, has said that the private sector as a whole—whether manufacturing industry, the construction industry at large, or the house building industry—has been slimmed down to danger point? Is he further aware that that same gentleman said that the present Government had brought private industry almost to its knees? Can the Secretary of State say whether that has come about deliberately or by mistake?

Mr. Heseltine: It has come about entirely as a consequence of the economic inheritance for which the present Government assumed responsibility, including the fact that the Clegg award cost the country £1·6 billion in extra wages, which has to be funded in the public sector without any increase in wealth to achieve it.

Mrs. Renée Short: There is no wealth now.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate has been made by his Department of the loss of business to private contractors arising from the moratorium imposed by him on local authority housing.

Mr. Stanley: My right hon. Friend's action is designed to hold local authority housing investment to its originally planned level for the year, not to cut it. He is now considering the latest figures, and the effects on the construction industry will depend on the nature and timing of those decisions.

Mr. Hooley: When will it penetrate the collective mind of the Cabinet that public authorities and public corporations are the major customers of private industry, and that to decimate public expenditure, so far from being any help to the private sector, is undermining its very existence?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will see that a great deal of the work of the construction industry is generated by the private sector. I am interested to note his concern for the future of private contractors in Sheffield. In view of the great deal of new house building work that in the past has been carried out by the direct labour organisation of Sheffield council, I look forward to his enthusiastic support for


the direct labour provisions of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill when they come into effect next year.

Mr. Best: Whilst I accept that the moratorium applies only to public sector building and not to other capital expenditure, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that many local authorities are now not giving improvement grants other than statutory grants, as a result of the reduction in HIP allocations? Does he not think that that is regrettable? I appreciate that improvement grants now come within the single block allocation, but will my hon Friend do everything in his power to encourage local authorities to give improvement grants as one of the most beneficial ways in which money can be spent?

Mr. Stanley: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested to know the figures. Private sector improvement grants paid in the year to September 1980, were higher than in any year since 1975.

Mr. Hardy: As the Minister has told the House during Question Time of the amount of money that he will be saving by his cuts in housing expenditure, will he tell the House how much money he has caused to be spent through higher unemployment? Does he not think it ridiculous that in regions such as Yorkshire and Humberside, if things go on as they are, 1981 will not be far advanced before more building workers are on the dole than in employment?

Mr. Stanley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take comfort from the fact that our overall capital expenditure on housing in the course of his financial year is about £2¾ billion.

Urban Simulation Games

Mr. Bevan: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment for what purpose the urban simulation games financed by his Department have been used; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Anthony Grant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment for what purpose the urban simulation games operated by his Department have been used; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): I am informed that an urban simulation game was commissioned by my Department during the last Administration. I understand that it was used at that time by officials as an aid in formulating policy for establishing inner city partnerships.

Mr. Bevan: While I appreciate the Government's non-responsibility for spending the £9,000 for the games, I should be obliged if I could have details of what kind of games they were. We have had difficulty enough over the past year. I should also like to know whether the games are still being played, and if so, where? Are they being played only by the civil servants.

Mr. King: I understand that the whistle was blown some time before the present Government came into office. Although they may seem the subject of some hilarity, such games are not an unknown management tool when trying to simulate circumstances in which to identify the best policies for inner city partnerships. That is why the previous Government set them up. We have no proposals to introduce any further such games.

Mr. Grant: Precisely who is responsible for all this tomfoolery? What has been learnt from these expensive games? Would it not be much more appropriate to send Monopoly sets to Socialist councils.

Mr. King: My hon. Friend's choice of words at the beginning of his supplementary question was somewhat unfortunate, because the matter has nothing to do with me. My hon. Friend will have to direct the question to any Labour right hon. or hon. Member who can tell us how the games influenced changes of policy. That is now a closely guarded secret of the previous Government, details of which I imagine will appear in about 30 years, or perhaps in a diary published earlier.

Mr. Foulkes: Will not the Minister agree that it was hypocritical of him to launch publicly the Council of Europe urban renaissance programme in this country when all his policies are designed


for urban decline rather than urban renaissance?

Mr. King: That is the most misleading and damaging statement that could possibly be made. The hon. Gentleman came to the colloquy representatives of the Council of Europe. Every single Minister from the countries represented recognised the tremendous contribution that could be made by community involvement. The issue of the capital funding, while significant, is far from being the only issue. To say to people, at a time of economic restraint, that there is no hope for them in community action and interest in improving their areas is a disgraceful comment.

Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend confirm to the House that there is no need to simulate rural games to know that the most grave damage has been done to housing in rural areas by the refusal of the Labour Party to support the proposals for shorthold that would do more to alleviate homelessness in my constituency than anything else that has been proposed?

Mr. King: At the risk of trespassing on my right hon. Friend's territory, I would confirm, from my own observations, that what my hon. Friend says is true. The failure of the Opposition to support this measure will contribute—this is confirmed by observations in my own constituency—to an increase in homelessness.

Water Charges

Mr. Parris: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his policy towards the National Water Council's consultation document, "Charging Households for Water."

Mr. King: After I have received notice from the council, following its consultation with consumers and other interested bodies on the provisional conclusions set out in its document.

Mr. Parris: Is my hon. Friend aware that if metering is to be voluntary, it is likely that only those people who will gain from it will want it, and the water authorities will suffer a loss of income?

Mr. King: This is one of the considerations discussed in the document. I await with great interest the responses to the consultation document. There is great public concern about present methods of charging for water. That is why I asked the National Water Council to publish the consultation document. It has done so. I hope that all hon. Members will take an interest in this issue.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that the campaign for metering following this report is now shown to be a dubious economic exercise and a piece of ideological nonsense? The annual cost of installing, reading and renting a meter is likely to be about £15 a year against an average bill of £52. In addition, it will add 8 per cent. to the 20 to 30 per cent. increase on all other households that do not go in for it. Is it any wonder that the National Water Council concluded by saying that savings, even in the long term, would be insufficient to offset the cost of the metering? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that conclusion and chop this ridiculous campaign?

Mr. King: The House will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's comments. I hope that hon. Members will prefer to make up their own minds rather than adopt the closed view of the right hon. Gentleman. It is for hon. Members to study the options available and not to be preached to by the right hon. Gentleman.

Development Corporations (Property Transfers)

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reach a decision on the terms of transfer of development corporation properties to local authorities in the case of second generation new towns.

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State hopes to discuss transfer terms with the Association of District Councils before Christmas.

Mr. Miller: Does the Minister understand that the local authorities—both district and county councils—cannot agree to accept the transfer of these properties until the terms are known? Is he aware that there is an increasing need


for transfers in areas such as Redditch where a terminal date is already set for the winding-up of the development corporation?

Mr. Stanley: As my hon. Friend may know, I am planning to visit Redditch early next month. I can assure him that it is the Government's firm intention to produce a fair basis of transfer both to taxpayers and to ratepayers. I hope that we shall be able to reach an agreed basis to enable transfers to take place on the due date, 1 April 1982.

Mr. Graham: Bearing in mind that the burden of maintaining these properties is only one of the many problems that face the councils of new towns, when will the Minister be prepared to publish the comprehensive Government policy for the future of new towns that he has promised the House more than once?

Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have already announced our conclusions on the target population sizes and proposed dissolution dates for the first and second generation new towns. We are left with the remaining third generation towns. My right hon. Friend will wish to make a statement as soon as he can.

Local Authority Expenditure

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if local authorities are keeping within their estimates of expenditure for the current year; or, if not, by what percentage these are likely to be exceeded.

Mr. Wheeler: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with local authorities' forecasts of their likely expenditure in 1980–81.

Mr. Heseltine: The revised budgets submitted by local authorities in August showed that for current expenditure they were still planning to spend in aggregate some £350 million at 1979 prices above the level envisaged in the 1980–81 rate support grant settlement. I took the view that there is a risk at outturn that they might be overspent by about £200 million. I therefore announced on 18 September the measures which I believe are necessary to bring expenditure back on course.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Secretary of State accept that the level of overspending by local authorities is far less than overspending by central Government and that the level of competence in the management of their affairs by most local authorities is far higher than that displayed by the present Administration? How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to reply to the leader of Rotherham borough council who has written to him suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman would be elated if he could keep his expenditure within 1 per cent. of estimates, something which the Rotherham authority has managed to achieve without inflicting extra redundancy or unnecessary cuts?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sympathetic to the claims of local government that it has managed its affairs a great deal better over the years than central Government. Undoubtedly the figures show that this is the case. It is true of the last five years—

Mr. William Hamilton: This year.

Mr. Heseltine: This year the situation broadly indicates that there is more likelihood of an overspend than in previous years. It still remains the fact that local government has a record of keeping to its capital and revenue budgets which is better than that of central Government. That is no argument for saying that, now that there is a risk that they will overspend this year, I should ignore the risk.

Mr. Wheeler: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the overspenders are to be made to pay the cost of the extravagance?

Mr. Heseltine: I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that, when we have the new system of distributing taxpayers' money through block grant, there will be much more of a relationship between the measured need of an authority and the amount of central Government support. It will be possible for central Government to ensure that, if there are levels of overspend in certain authorities, those authorities are likely to suffer most, as opposed to the present system where it is largely those which have kept within the Government's guidelines which suffer.

Mr. Snape: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the borough of Sandwell is


exactly on target in its housing expenditure and is not an overspending council? Is he aware that two weeks before his moratorium regional officials of his Department met officers of the borough to discuss the borough taking up allocations not taken up by other authorities? Does his Department know what is going on in the right hon. Gentleman's mind? Is he aware that many people in local government—officers and elected members—feel that the best service he could provide to local government would be to tender his resignation?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman might take into account that someone else in my place might demand even greater sacrifices.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that housing expenditure by local authorities is a balance of income and outgoings? Will he repeat the invitation to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to give his view on the decision by Greenwich borough council not to abide by the law and sell homes to those tenants who want to buy?

Mr. Heseltine: The whole House would appreciate it if the right hon. Gentleman made clear that he thinks that all local authorities should keep within the law.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. Major: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the rate support grant settlement for 1981–82.

Mr. Heseltine: I shall announce the 1981–82 rate support grant settlement early in December.

Mr. Major: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this year's settlement will not discriminate unfairly against efficient county councils such as Cambridgeshire which in recent years has accepted a vast population overspill from cities without any corresponding increases in its proportionate share of the grant?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not anticipate the basis of the RSG settlement, which I shall announce early in December. It is the intention that the RSG system we are now introducing should

have a greater relationship with measured need as opposed to past expenditure.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Secretary of State give the House of Commons the information about next year's rate support grant settlement that he gave to Lord Ridley shortly before the House of Lords debated the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill?

Mr. Heseltine: I have had no conversations with Lord Ridley.

Council House Building

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to lift the moratorium on council house building.

Mr. Heseltine: I am studying the estimates of committed housing investment expenditure for 1980–81 which local authorities have submitted. I shall announce my decision as soon as possible.

Mr. Alton: Is the Secretary of State unaware that, as a result of the imposition of his moratorium, not only will many more people be stuck on waiting lists for years but a million people will still be living in houses requiring sanitation and over 200,000 construction workers will be in the dole queue? What economic or social sense does that make?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is confusing my determination to keep within the cash limits with an assumption that I have cut the programme. I am trying to ensure that the Government do not overspend on programmes announced some months ago.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (AGRICULTURE MINISTERS' MEETING)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, I shall report to the House on the outcome of the Agriculture Council on 10 and 11 November at which my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I represented the United Kingdom.
On New Zealand butter, I emphasised the Communitiy's obligation to remove the uncertainties and settle this matter urgently on the basis of the Commission's proposals. The Council accepted the political


and economic importance to the Community and New Zealand of reaching agreement. The main point of discussion was over the duration of a new agreement. With one exception, all other member States expressed a preference for an arrangement covering three to four years. France said that it could accept only a short extension. I expect this matter to be discussed further during the Foreign Ministers' Council later this month.
The Council discussed the Commission's proposals for a revised sugar regime. The Government support the need for action to limit excess production in the Community to keep down the cost of surplus disposal and as a necessary step towards membership of the international sugar agreement. I told the Council, however, that the Government could not accept in their present form the Commission's proposals on quotas and on levies for the financing of the surplus disposal because they discriminate against beet producers in the United Kingdom. This subject will be on the agenda for December.
The Council also had before it a package of animal health measures. After considerable discussions yesterday, I am glad to be able to tell the House that an agreement was reached which fully protects the high health standards in our pig herd
We drew attention to the serious problems over the implementation of the Council directive on poultrymeat hygiene. The Commission's report has confirmed that there is distortion of competition because of differences between member States in the way that the provisions of the directive are being applied. The Commissioner agreed that there is a need for detailed rules to achieve uniformity and to harmonise the arrangements for meeting the costs involved. He confirmed that he would wish to move quickly to deal with these problems, and I hope that proposals will be made at the December meeting of the Council.

Mr. Mason: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his report. Is he aware that the last Council meeting caused us anxiety? Is he aware that Parliament would not have agreed to enter the Common Market if we did not have proper safeguards for New Zealand lamb and for the 1·3 million tonnes of cane sugar from

the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries? As a result of the discussions at the last Council meeting, it appears that much of that is under threat. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that New Zealand is not happy with the sheepmeat deal, that the French are vetoing agreement on New Zealand butter imports, and that, if national sugar quotas are not reduced this time, the ACP countries' sugar imports will be threatened?
Everyone recognises that the French are involved in blackmail in an attempt to undermine the budget deal and to squeeze concessions from the Minister on a future fisheries policy. Will the right hon. Gentleman stand firm? He creates the impression that he is not standing up firmly enough for Britain. Is he aware that our major concern is his personal refusel to revalue the green pound? Although the right hon. Gentleman is known to criticise the Government's strict monetarist policy, he is the cruellist monetarist of them all. Does he accept that he is personally responsible for a growing tax on our food imports and an increased budgetary contribution to the Common Market?
Is not it a fact that if the right hon. Gentleman revalued the green pound in full food prices in Britain would fall by an average of 2¼ per cent. and that our financial contribution by way of food taxes would fall drastically? Why, therefore, because of the right hon. Gentleman's policy, should British taxpayers foot the increased Common Market poultrymeat bill so that housewives and consumers continue to suffer? Will he explain why he does not revalue the green pound?

Mr. Walker: The Lome amounts for cane sugar are agreed. By saying that the agreement is in danger the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing a totally unfounded scare campaign. He says that the New Zealanders are dissatisfied with the lamb deal. He will be pleased to know that the New Zealand Prime Minister, deputy Prime Minister and Government have expressed their personal gratitude for the excellence of the deal that we have obtained on their behalf.
I turn to the question of New Zealand butter. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman feels appropriately ashamed that, as a result of his Government's renegotiation of the Common Market, after 1


January this year New Zealand would have had no butter quota of any description. It is total humbug for the Opposition to express disappointment in this way.
I await with interest the Opposition's explanation of the reason why, in a period when negative MCAs were going up to 45 per cent., food prices, instead of going down, went up much faster than under this Government.

Mr. Mason: The right hon. Gentleman owes the House an explanation on MCAs. If he cares and is not as cruel a monetarist as I suggested, he will have studied the figures which affect the families of Great Britain. Will he tell us what the food levy is costing the average family in its weekly food bill? Is it 50p or 75p a week? How much have food taxes cost us since positive MCAs began operating?

Mr. Walker: As a result of what has happened to the £ sterling in the last few days, I understand that in the next week or two there will be a reduction in MCAs. I shall be interested to see what effect that has on food prices. We know that under the last Government, when we had negative MCAs, food prices rose much faster. The right hon. Gentleman forgets that the Labour Party argues that a monetarist policy results in the pound sterling going up to the detriment of British exports and to the advantage of foreign imports. In agriculture we have a mechanism which stops that, and I should have thought that the Opposition would be celebrating rather than complaining.

Mr. Peter Mills: Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the other Ministers the problem of surpluses in the Community? It would be most helpful if we knew the exact position. It would be of interest to the producer, who wants to plan forward and to the consumer, who pays for the surpluses.

Mr. Walker: Considerable changes in surpluses have taken place in the past year. Sugar was one of the main surpluses. Since the European sugar price is way below the world price, Europe is making a profit of about £6 million a week on sugar stocks. I am glad to say that the surplus of milk powder has come

down from the peak of 1½ million tonnes to 230,000 tonnes. Butter surpluses have come down from 390,000 tonnes to 170,000 tonnes.

Mr. Geraint Howells: In view of the exchanges between the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and the Minister, can the Minister say whether production costs have risen in the last 12 months and by what percentage? What percentage of butter consumed in Britain is produced in New Zealand? May we have an assurance for British meat producers that he will not accept a quota system?

Mr. Walker: The rise in oil prices has had a dramatic effect on the cost of fertilisers. Last year agricultural workers received a wage increase of about 20 per cent., which caused a further substantial increase in input costs. The final figure is not known, but there has been a massive increase in input costs. In the battle against inflation no sector of the economy has played a bigger role in the last 18 months in keeping prices down than the food sector.
I do not know the exact figures for New Zealand butter. The figures proposed by the Commission have been negotiated with the New Zealand Government, with whom we are in close contact. They are acceptable to them. I am glad to say that there has been a substantial increase in sales of English butter and we are now selling a larger proportion of English butter in British shops than for many years. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall stick to sugar quotas that make sense for British agriculture.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Has any progress been made in reshaping the processing and marketing scheme into a form in which it could be of some use to Britain, especially to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Walker: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the proposals on Northern Ireland are part of the structures package. There was a three-hour or four-hour discussion on the package, during which some progress was made. We made the point that the Northern Ireland matter was urgent because of the current problems in Irish agriculture. I pressed the Commission and the Council of Ministers to ensure that conclusions are reached at the next meeting.

Mr. John MacKay: Did my right hon. Friend discuss some of the problems that have arisen in the implementation of the sheepmeat agreement, especially how the clawback is affecting wholesalers exporting both to Third world countries and to other EEC countries? That is causing considerable difficulty.

Mr. Walker: We did not discuss that matter at the Council of Ministers' meeting. We have held discussions with various members of the Commission because, as my hon. Friend knows, the Commission stated that when the pattern of trade created by the clawback provisions could be identified it would ensure that measures were taken to ensure that it did not interfere with British trade prospects. We have given the Commission the updated information and suggested a number of technical changes, which it has undertaken to study quickly.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Was fisheries policy discussed at the Council of Ministers' meeting? Will the Minister reaffirm his previous assurances that fisheries policy will still be regarded as a unilateral issue?

Mr. Walker: I give the assurance that fisheries policy has always been discussed on its merits. The Agriculture Council meeting was held this week, and the Fisheries Council meeting will be held next week.

Mr. Jay: Does the Minister recall that the Conservative Party approved the renegotiation terms for New Zealand in 1975? As it now appears that only the French are still trying to block our butter supplies from New Zealand, will he assure us that under no circumstances will the Government give way to the French obstruction?

Mr. Walker: In fairness, the French are not trying to block the butter supplies from New Zealand. In the interests of the New Zealand agriculture plan, we are seeking at least a three-or four-year agreement period. The French are happy to agree butter supplies for next year. We are negotiating for a longer period. Eight member countries and the Commission are in agreement. If it has foreign policy implications, it is important that Foreign Ministers discuss it.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great feeling of outrage throughout Britain because the Russians buy surplus foods, sell them at high profits and use the money to buy arms for use in Afghanistan? Is he aware also of the strong feelings about the economics of Bedlam whereby vessels catch fish by the ton but if it does not reach a certain price it is then dumped? Are we to continue with a system in which food is said to be too cheap when every housewife knows that it is too dear?

Mr. Walker: The Government have always been opposed to any sales of butter to the Soviet Union. I was glad that the Commission yesterday announced that it was abandoning the pre-fixing procedures that could have enabled further butter contracts with the Soviet Union to take effect in January. I am glad that we have the support of Western Germany on that matter.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that the present levels of MCAs cost the family 50p per week and would cost the British taxpayer £200 million a year?

Mr. Walker: Of course I cannot confirm that. The hon. Gentleman quotes his figure of 50p on the remarkable conclusion that any changes in the MCA would be passed on by the foreign exporter to the British housewife as opposed to the foreign exporter taking a larger profit margin. That is a dubious assumption.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If the Government's main battle is to fight inflation and reduce spending, will my right hon. Friend explain why he agreed, however temporarily, to the additional 11·8 per cent. tax on food that will result in Britain having to pay more across the exchanges?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend's question shows a remarkable ignorance of the mechanisms involved. He uses a good headline-catching phrase. When the previous Labour Government were in power, I am sure that my hon. Friend joined his Shadow Cabinet colleagues in condemning a system whereby British agriculture was suffering a positive disadvantage compared with foreign agriculture. I am glad to say that for the first time since we joined the Common Market we have an advantage. That


is why our exports are increasing and our imports decreasing. The Government also have a considerable interest in full employment.

Mr. Dalyell: Is there likely to be an ethyl alcohol regime that will damage investment in such places as Grange mouth?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. Although the alcohol regime was discussed at the meeting. I do not believe that in the foreseeable future there will be any regime that could be damaging to the investment to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Gummer: Will my right hon. Friend expand a little on his remarks about the poultry industry? Is he aware that most of those who produce chickens and eggs in my constituency want to see the EEC work? They are concerned because it appears that they pay the cost of poultry inspection—of which they are in favour—but that in other countries the cost is paid by the State.

Mr. Walker: It was at the behest of the British Government that the Commission carried out an inquiry into the practices of all member States. It has published a report which shows that our complaint was fully justified. The Commissioner has promised to take measures to bring about harmonisation both in the method and in the cost of application.

Mr. Maclennan: Has the Minister had the opportunity to put before the Council of Ministers the proposals of the Scottish National Farmers Union for an integrated agricultural programme for the Highlands and Islands of Scotland? If not, in view of the time that the proposals have been before his Department, why not?

Mr. Walker: The proposals for the Western Isles come under the structures package. Discussion will continue to take place when the package is brought up at the December meeting.

Mr. Peter Fraser: I welcome my right hon Friend's initiatives on the discrepancy in the poultrymeat hygiene regulations. Will he make it clear before the December meeting that we cannot afford any delay on that issue? Will he confirm that the cost of inspection being borne

by the EEC is one of the mattters which the Commission will consider?

Mr. Walker: Yes. Sir. On the question of the method of payment, as a matter of principle it is not thought necessary for either the Commission or national Governments to pay. It may be that industry should pay, and I should not object to that providing that industry in all member countries pay. It is important to achieve equality rather than differences in the method of payment.

Mr. English: Does the Minister agree that per thousand pounds of turnover or per employee the subsidies to British manufacturing industry should be raised to the same level as those to the British agriculture industry?

Mr. Walker: I should welcome that if the productivity of British manufacturing industry and investment in the manufacturing industry were as good as that in the agriculture industry.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a serious position faces the beef producers in Staffordshire and elsewhere in Britain? Is he further aware that the intervention system does not appear to give a fair return to the producer? Was that subject discussed at the meeting, and, if not, why not? Will he take steps to ensure that the variable premium is more flexible, as is happening in Ireland?

Mr. Walker: Recent changes in the beef intervention system were discussed at the meeting. As a result, the Commission promised to lay before the Council an analysis of the present intervention system for beef, its operation, and ways in which its efficiency could be improved to have a better effect on the beef industry.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Minister aware that a recent common Community levy on common wheat into the EEC was £42 a tonne, but that on wheat imported into the United Kingdom it was £47 a tonne? Does he agree that the basic difference is due to the high value of the £ sterling? Will he also confirm that he could reduce that difference by devaluing the green pound? If he could, why does he not do so?

Mr. Walker: There is a great deal of talk about revaluing the green pound. If


the pound sterling continues to go down at the rate of the last two days, in a fortnight we shall be in negative MCAs again. It shows how quickly the position can change. Any analysis will show that the prolonged period when we had negative MCAs was not good for food prices and was appallingly bad for British agriculture.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising to speak before I call the Front Bench.

Mr. Marlow: Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to discuss with the Council of Ministers the substance of an answer that he gave to me earlier in the year, namely that the British housewife is faced with a massive bill, over and above our net budget contribution, in excess of £600 million a year, by being forced to buy expensive European foodstuffs rather than being able to buy cheap foodstuffs available on the world market? Does he agree with me that he would enjoy the confidence of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), myself and the rest of the House rather more if he could get some compensation on this issue?

Mr. Walker: While I am desperate to obtain the confidence of my two hon. Friends, I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that, as he well knows, I would not be willing to see British agriculture subjected to the adverse effects, at any one moment, of taking the lowest world price and perhaps destroying whole sections of British agriculture. No Government of any complexion in the post-war period has been willing to pursue that policy. It is that type of policy on which the sorts of figures that are bandied about are based.

Mr. Christopher Price: Did the right hon. Gentleman discuss at the meeting the possibility—which is prevented at the moment by what seems to be a French veto—of moving to a full customs union with the Republic of Cyprus? Does he realise that, although he has had quite a lot of questions about the price of fish, the problem about Cyprus agriculture determines to a considerable extent the price of chips in this country, quite

apart from the other imports of fruit and alcoholic beverages? Is this country standing behind Cyprus in regard to the pledge which was thought to have been given that there was an agreement to move towards a full customs union?

Mr. Walker: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman because this was not in any way a matter connected with the Council meeting; but we are in close contact with the Cypriot Government on a number of matters affecting my own Department and Cyprus.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister agree that the hill farmers, particularly in Scotland, are now in real trouble? Is he aware, for example, that I was given a figure of £39,000 as being the average overdraft of hill farmers in Scotland? Is he further aware that they are now having to borrow money in order to pay the interest on the money already borrowed?
In view of the fact that the increase in variable premiums came too late to help the hill farmers, will the Minister now consider some increase in the compensatory allowance, or some other help with feed or fuel cost, to help these people, otherwise the hill farmers will all go bankrupt?

Mr. Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have prolonged talks with his Front Bench on these topics and try to dispel the general myth that they are trying to create that British agriculture is having a marvellous time at the expense of everybody else when, as the hon. Gentleman says, farm incomes in real terms have been going down? I am glad, therefore, in view of what the hon. Gentleman says, that last year I gave the biggest ever increase in hill farm subsidies and succeeded in negotiating the sheepmeat regime.

Mr. Parry: The Minster in his statement expressed concern for sugar beet. Will he now express his concern for the workers in the port cane refineries? Will he also give a clear assurance that the present 1·3 million tonnes of ACP sugar will continue to come into the United Kingdom for home consumption? A firm commitment from the Government is essential for the employment prospects of workers in the port refineries, particularly in areas such as Merseyside?

Mr. Walker: Yes. It is because we totally respect the agreements on ACP sugar that we are in agreement to reduce the quotas as far as Europe is concerned. We are not asking for increased quotas for the United Kindom and we want, obviously, to use the ability for our own beet producers to provide that part of the market that is not provided by ACP sugar. But we have totally adhered to the agreement of 1·3 million tonnes of ACP sugar.

Mr. Hardy: The Minister said earlier that the level of our agricultural exports to Europe was increasing, and the House is aware that he has given a very firm commitment to this for quite a time now. Is he not disappointed with the level of those exports? Was he not expecting to achieve more? Does he attribute the disappointment to the abuse and disdain of regulations in some member States, as in the case about which I informed the House the other day? One of my constituents, who is well aware of the French disregard of poultry regulations, witnessed last week's eggs being marked with next week's dates, at a time when the French were supposed to be sensitive to the change about which the Minister informed the House a moment ago.

Mr. Walker: I am glad to say that in recent months there has been a very steep increase in our exports to the Community. Another very important factor is the degree, in a whole range of commodities, to which we are getting a much bigger share of our home market. That, too, is an encouraging trend. There are differences of practice, and when we hear of any case violating these principles we draw it to the attention of the Commission, which then normally prosecutes.

Mr. Strang: Returning to the important issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry). is the Minister aware of the

continuing speculation concerning the future of the Liverpool cane refinery, including an item on today's BBC early morning farming programme? In view of the fact that there are 1,200 people directly employed at the refinery, in an area where male unemployment is a staggering 18 per cent., will the Minister tell the House whether he has received any communication from Tate and Lyle about the future of the refinery? Will he give an undertaking that the Government will attach the same priority to protecting this employment on Merseyside as the previous Labour Government did?

Mr. Walker: With regard to the area for which I am responsible, which is securing the access of the 1·3 million tonnes of cane sugar to this country—and keeping the British sugar quotas to levels which the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member considered to be reasonable for the United Kingdom—I point out to the hon. Gentleman that his own Government's White Paper, "Food from Our Own Resources", set targets for British beet quotas, and I have no intention whatever of exceeding those.

Later—

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In my question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, I was discussing the cost to British housewives of food bought from Europe. In his answer, my right hon. Friend started confusing that with agricultural support in the United Kingdom, which is a completely different matter. If that goes in the Official Report in the way in which he put his answer, that would be most misleading to the public. I should like my right hon. Friend to have the opportunity of correcting what he said.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Member's right hon. Friend has departed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS (NON-DISCRIMINATION)

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it unlawful for local government to discriminate on political grounds in making appointments.
The purpose of the Bill that I am drawing to the attention of the House, in the hope that hon. Members will support me, is to make it unlawful for local government authorities to discriminate on the grounds of the political beliefs of applicants in the making of appointments.
The basic criterion that has characterised British local government has been that those who have enjoyed service in it have always respected the positions of those who have enjoyed the confidence of the electorate, and that they have continued to serve the authority, no matter which party controlled it.
In recent years, a number of challenges have arisen to that criterion, and it is a matter of sad regret on my part that I am a Member for a constituency that is part of the metropolitan borough of Walsall, and where a number—only a small number, I believe—of highly motivated individuals wish to challenge a principle that has long been central to the conduct of local government in this country.
I do not intend to deal with the matter in a particularly partisan fashion, but it is important to recognise that in order to bring forward a quality of officer who can best serve the interests of all the community one has to discount the political affiliations or affections of that individual.
Unfortunately, in the small group who control Walsall council it has now become a matter of policy to take into account the political allegiance of individuals. I shall cite approximately some of the policy tenets that this group has set forward. The group has stated as its policy—it did this prior to the local government elections of last year—and has emphasised its determination, by either appointment or influence, to direct the basic philosophy of council staff, acknowledging that this would have a far-reaching effect beyond any single policy matter.
The group further observed that that would have effects that, unlike some policies, would transcend elections. This House and our system of government is dedicated to the fact that no one has a monopoly on truth, and that any of our visions or views of the world are subject to the discretion of the electorate. Unfortunately, the tenet that is put forward by those who now control Walsall metropolitan borough is such that it would override or transcend the effect of elections. The history of the twentieth century is marred by those who have thought that the interests of their policies could be served by transcending elections. It is important for this House to respond to challenges and to matters that are important to the central themes of our political life, as it has done on past occasions.
In the past we have deemed discrimination on the basis of race or of sex to be improper. It is both harmful and wasteful of talent. Discrimination on the grounds put forward by my local authority would also be wasteful and harmful. What honourable career officer in local government could hazard his career by putting forward an application for appointment in a borough that is known to prejudice in favour of those who are, for the moment, sympathetic to their own political objectives? My fear is that for those people who live in Aldridge-Brownhills the quality of their services will be affected by reducing the numbers of those available to serve the whole community. For those reasons, I hope that the House will support the introduction of this Bill to prevent discrimination in appointments to local authorities.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has been rising in his place, has given me notice that he wishes to oppose the motion.

Mr. David Winnick: Labour Members do not need lectures from Conservative Members about combating discrimination. For many years Lord Brockway, when he was a Member of this House, tried to introduce Bills to outlaw race discrimination. He received no support from Conservative Members. But he persisted, and it was a Labour Government who made racial


discrimination illegal. Legislation to prevent women being penalised was introduced by a Labour Government and likewise, action was taken by a Labour Government to safeguard the position of the disabled. In terms of combating real discrimination—discrimination that penalties and humiliates people—Labour Members have fought strongly for anti-discrimination measures.
I oppose the introduction of the Bill because I believe that the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has given a distorted picture to the House. I read in my local evening newspaper on 19 September about the appointment of a new deputy director of social services—a senior appointment, which was made after all the fuss and controversy relating to appointments in the borough. The new deputy director was quoted in that newspaper as saying:
During the interview there was no overt or hinted reference to any political colour at all. There was no question of any poitical overtone.
Some hon. Members may wish to reflect on the honour of that gentleman and suggest that he was not telling the truth, since he was appointed by the new Labour-controlled council. It is surprising that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who I assume saw the report, did not wish to bring it to the attention of the House. At present, the Walsall council is advertising for a housing director, and it is interesting to note from an article in the Local Government Chronicle that at its recent conference the Association of District Secretaries was enthusiastic about the council inviting candidates to look at the borough, rather than simply relying on the usual formal interview.
I suggest that the way in which the council is trying to provide proper services and ensure that the right people are appointed should be supported, and not criticised. The majority party on the council—I know that it has been subject to criticism and controversy—believes that those people who are appointed to senior positions and to jobs that are sensitive, in which the people involved will be interviewing members of the general public, should be sympathetic and responsive to the needs of the public in the borough.
Hon. Members are aware that constituents come to our surgeries with many problems, and our attitude as Members of Parliament is sympathetic because we understand that the people who come to see us, whether on housing, social security or other problems, come because they believe that their individual problem is important. Therefore, understandably, our attitude is sympathetic and understanding. Despite all the controversy, the council is making the point that the attitude of the officials should be responsible and sympathetic to those people in difficulty.
Recently, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made an accusation against Sandwell council about a closed shop agreement, and I note from yesterday's evening paper that the hon. Gentleman has admitted that he was wrong. He said that the closed shop agreement in Sandwell was illegal, and he now admits that it is nothing of the sort. My advice to the hon. Gentleman is that he should not be so quick to criticise councils. He should think about what they are trying to do.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that he advocates my case more effectively in fighting to do away with discrimination of the nature that I have outlined today?

Mr. Winnick: Just as the hon. Gentleman has seen fit to apologise about his accusation against Sandwell council, I wait for the day when he will apologise for his remarks regarding Walsall council.
The borough undoubtedly faces many housing and environmental problems. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman uses his time in this House to bring in a sham Bill—a Bill without any need or justification. It would have been far better if he had tried to present the problems that we face in the borough. For example—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must merely say why he is opposed to the Bill being introduced.

Mr. Winnick: I oppose the introduction of the Bill because it is unnecessary and because the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has given a misleading and distorted picture to the House. It is important that Walsall borough has


claimed designation under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. There is no controversy in the borough on the question that the council should receive such designation because of the problems that it faces, but the hon. Gentleman has seen fit not to give support.
One of the reasons—

Mr. Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of my Bill is to try to outlaw discrimination in appointments to local authorities. I fail to see the relevance of the arguments of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has a valid point. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) must confine himself to answering—[Hon. Members: "He cannot."] Order. In his opposition to the Bill being put forward, the hon. Member must confine himself to answering the arguments that were advanced.

Mr. Winnick: What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, basically, is that there is no such discrimination as argued by the hon. Member, but there is discrimination by the present Government against the borough as a whole. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] It seems to me that the sort of problems that are being faced in the borough—problems over housing, problems involving the environment, and the fact that we have not been designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act—are the sort of problems that we should be debating in this House, and not the sham measure that the hon. Member proposes.
One of the reasons, which is very relevant to the measure being introduced by the hon. Member—

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: rose—

Mr. Winnick: One of the reasons—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to make it clear that it is customary, on a Ten-Minute Bill, for a short statement

to be made from either side, normally without interruption, and usually both sides relate their arguments to the issue.

Mr. Winnick: I can well understand the impatience and irritation of the Tories, because they are engaged in a purely propaganda exercise and they do not like the facts being presented to them.
One of the reasons that the hon. Member gave for not supporting the council's application for designation—and this is relevant to what he said—is that he has not been getting a prompt response to letters that he has sent to council departments. This occurred before Labour took over.
If a Member of Parliament has had difficulty in getting replies from council departments—this was before Labour took over—it is understandable that the members of the council who now control the local authority should be concerned about the lack of response to the general public. Hence their wish to appoint people who are sympathetic and who understand the problems of people who come to the civic centre with their issues.
I therefore argue that what has been presented today is not necessary. It is irrelevant to the needs of the borough. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member has seen fit to abuse the House by bringing in this shabby Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mrs. Sheila Faith, Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark, Sir Nicholas Bonsor, Mr. John Butcher, and Mr. John Heddle.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS (NON-DISCRIMINATION)

Mr. Richard Shepherd accordingly presented a Bill to make it unlawful for local government to discriminate on political grounds in making appointments; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 273.]

Orders of the Day — HIGHWAYS BILL [LORDS]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVING in the Chair].

Clauses 1 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HIGHWAYS AND PROVISION OF ROAD-FERRIES

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 25, line 39, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) The Minister or a local highway authority may provide and maintain new road-ferries.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 26 to 32, Nos. 34 to 45, Nos. 47 to 52, Nos. 55 to 60, and Nos. 62 to 66.
The Solicitor-General: Because I know that the House of Commons is anxious to move to the next business, and because I can in this case assure the Committee that the need for all these amendments is clear and simple, I shall be very brief. It would, however, be remiss if I did not pause for a moment to wish the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas), who leads for the Opposition on this Bill, a very happy birthday. I hope not to keep him from the celebrations for very long.
The amendments in this group all incorporate into the Bill amendments made in another place to the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, which relate to the highways legislation being consolidated into this Bill. It follows from the acceptance of those amendments in the House of Commons yesterday that in order to ensure that this Bill is now right as a consolidation measure and will represent the existing state of the law when it comes into force, these amendments must be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

COMPULSORY POWERS FOR CREATION OF FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 27, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'Where it appears to the Secretary of State in a particular case that there is need for a footpath or bridleway as mentioned in subsection (1) above, and he is satisfied as mentioned in that subsection, he may, after consultation with each body which is a local authority for the purposes of this section in relation to the land concerned, make a public path creation order creating the footpath or bridleway.'.

No. 27, in page 27, line 10, leave out from beginning to 'a' in line 11—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

MAKING UP OF NEW FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 27, line 42, leave out subsections (2) to (4).

No. 29, in page 28, line 20, leave out from beginning to "specified" in line 21 and insert
It shall be the duty of the highway authority to carry out any works".
No. 30, in page 28, line 38, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
(7) Where the Secretary of State makes a public path creation order under section 26(2) above, he may direct that subsection (7A) below shall apply.
(7A) Where the Secretary of State gives such a direction—

(a) the local authority who, on the coming into force of the order, became the highway authority for the path or way in question shall survey the path or way and shall certify what work (if any) appears to them to be necessary to bring it into a fit condition for use by the public as a footpath or bridleway, as the case may be, and shall furnish the Secretary of State with a copy of the certificate;
(b) if the Secretary of State is not satisfied with a certificate made under the foregoing paragraph, he shall either cause a local inquiry to be held or shall give to the local authority an opportunity of being heard


by a person appointed by him for the purpose and, after considering the report of the person appointed to hold the inquiry or the person so appointed as aforesaid, shall make such order either confirming or varying the certificate as he may think fit; and
(c) subject to the provisions of the last foregoing paragraphs, it shall be the duty of the highway authority to carry out the work specified in a certificate made by them under paragraph (a) above".—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 28 to 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

PROVISIONS WHEREBY HIGHWAY CREATED BY DEDICATION MAY BECOME MAINTAINABLE AT PUBLIC EXPENSE

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 39, line 12, leave out 'clerk' and insert 'proper officer'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 2 to 4, No. 46, No. 5, No. 7, No. 53, No. 54, No. 8, Nos. 10 to 13 and Nos. 21 to 23.

The Solicitor-General: These are all minor and technical drafting amendments, which will correct either drafting or typographical errors. Having regard to the size of the Bill, right hon. and hon. Members may feel that it speaks volumes for the skill of the draftsmen that there are so few amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 37, as amended, ordered stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 38 to 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56

PROCEEDINGS FOR AN ORDER TO REPAIR HIGHWAY

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 53, line 34, leave out subsection (6).—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 57 to 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74

POWER TO PRESCRIBE A BUILDING LINE

Amendment made: No. 32, in page 67, line 33, leave out subsection (2).—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 75 to 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 90 and 91 disagreed to.

Clauses 92 to 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 118

POWER OF MAGISTRATES' COURT TO AUTHORISE STOPPING UP OR DIVERSION OF HIGHWAY

Amendments made: No. 34, in page 103, line 9, leave out from 'withheld' to end of line 10.

No. 2, in page 104, line 22, leave out second 'clerk' and insert 'proper officer'—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 119 to 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 122

EXERCISE OF POWERS OF MAKING PUBLIC PATH EXTINGUISHMENT AND DIVERSION ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 108, line 25, leave out the 'and insert' 'a'.

No. 35, in page 108, leave out lines 42 to 46 and insert
'he may himself make the order after consultation with the appropriate authority'

No. 36, in page 109, line 1, leave out subsection (4).

No. 37, in page 109, line 11, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
. (6) Where under subsection (3) above the Secretary of State decides to make a public path diversion order, he may require the owner, lessee or occupier on whose representations he is acting to enter into an agreement with such council as he may specify for the owner, lessee or occupier to defray, or to make such contribution as may be specied in the


agreement towards any such compensation or expenses as are specified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 121(5) above.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 123 to 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 126

STOPPING UP PRIVATE ACCESS TO HIGHWAYS

Amendments made: No. 38, in page 111 line 43, leave out from 'making' to 'received' in line 44 and insert
'of an order by the Minister'.
No. 39, in page 112, line 1, leave out 'the Minister; and' and insert'
'him;
(ca) for objections to the confirmation of an order made by a local highway authority to be considered by the Minister if any of the objections to the confirmation of the order received within such period as may be so prescribed and not withdrawn was made by an owner, lessee or occupier of any premises with a private means of access which the order would authorise the highway authority to stop up;
(cb) for objections to the confirmation of an order made by a local highway authority received within such period as may be so prescribed and not withdrawn to be considered by the local highway authority if there is no objection received within that period from an owner, lessee or occupier such as is mentioned in paragraph (ca) above or if all such objections so received are withdrawn before the order is referred to the Minister for confirmation;'.
No. 40, in page 112, line 6, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) In the case of an order made by a local highway authority under this section—

(a) if no objection to the confirmation of the order is received within the period prescribed by regulations under subsection (4) above; or
(b) if every such objection so received is withdrawn; or
(c) if every such objection so received from an owner, lessee or ocupier of any premises with a private means of access which the order would authorise the highway authority to stop up is withdrawn,

the local highway authority may themelves confirm the order, with or without modifications.
(5A) Before confirming an order with modifications the local highway authority, if they consider that the proposed modifications will make a substantial change in the order,

shall inform every such owner, lessee or occupier as is mentioned in subsection (5)(c) above and every other person who appears to them to be likely to be affected by the modifications to the order—

(a) of their intention to make the order: and
(b) of the form in which they propose to make it.

(5B) The local highway authority shall give every such person as is mentioned in subsection (5A) above an opportunity to make representations with regard to the order, and shall consider any representations with regard to it which any such person makes.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 127 to 131 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 132

PROTECTION OF PUBLIC RIGHTS

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 115, line 23, leave out first 'highway' and insert 'highways'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 133 to 136 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 137

TEMPORARY DIVERSION OF PATH OR WAY PLOUGHED UP UNDER SECTION 136

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 119, line 28, leave out from 'way' to end of line 30.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 138 to 148 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 149

POWER TO AUTHORISE ERECTION OF STILES ETC. ON FOOTPATH OR BRIDLEWAY

Amendments made: No. 42, in page 130, line 35, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

No. 43, in page 131, line 14, leave out from 'section' to 'the public' in line 15.

No. 44, in page 131, line 22, leave out from 'section' to 'is' in line 23.—[The Solicitor-General.]

part of the Bill.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand

Clause 150

PENALTY FOR DEPOSITING THINGS OR PITCHING BOOTHS ETC. ON HIGHWAY

Amendment made: No. 45, in page 131, line 42, leave out 'or gipsy'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 151 to 173 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 174

HOARDINGS TO BE SET UP DURING BUILDING ETC.

Amendment made: No. 46, in page 157, line 29, leave out '(1)' and insert (2) '.——[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 175 to 183 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 184

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO LICENCES UNDER SECTION 183

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 168, line 36, leave out licence 'and insert licensee'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 185 to 213 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 214

RECOVERY OF EXPENSES AND CHARGE THEREOF ON PREMISES

Amendments made: No. 47, in page 191, line 35, after interest ', insert
' at such reasonable rates as the authority may determine '.

No, 48, in page 192, line 14, leave out subsection (5).—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 215 to 220 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 221

PAYMENTS TO BE MADE BY OWNERS OF NEW BUILDINGS IN RESPECT OF STREET WORKS.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 196, line 15, after Executive ', insert
', the National Freight Corporation (as far as included in this paragraph by paragraph 15(a) of Schedule 23 to this Act) '.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may take amendment No. 9, in clause 331, page 283, line 1, after Executive ', insert
, the National Freight Corporation (as far as included in this subsection by paragraph 15(b) of Schedule 23 to this Act) '.

Mr. Thomas: My right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in Furness (Mr. Booth), in whose name these two amendments stand, has uncovered an anomaly. Before proceeding, may I say how grateful I am to the Solicitor-General for his kind remarks at the beginning of the debate?
Unless these amendments are accepted the National Freight Corporation, almost alone of statutory undertakings, would be liable to make payments to the street works authority as required by clause 222. Clause 221(4)(i) (i), (ii) and (iii) makes no mention of the National Freight Corporation. I think that I understand why—namely, that the Transport Act 1980 took the NFC out of the Highways Act 1959. The view taken was—in our opinion, mistakenly—that there was nothing to consolidate in this regard. It is also a mistake to anticipate legislation relating to the NFC. Although an appointed day has been foreshadowed in that regard, it is certainly long after 1 January when I understand that it is hoped that the Bill will receive Royal Assent. Therefore, I hope that the amendments will be accepted.

The Solicitor-General: I have great admiration and respect for the mastery of the details of the Bill by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), especially on the point now being taken up by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas).
There is a difference between us whether the amendment is technically necessary. However, I do not want to pursue that point. I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abertillery for drawing attention to the possible difference and tabling amendments, which, I accept, remove that difference. There cannot be any different interpretation. Accordingly, I content myself by expressing my appreciation for the Opposition's assistance and accepting the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 221, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 222

DETERMINATION OF LIABILITY FOR, AND AMOUNT OF, PAYMENTS

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 199, line 44, after 'amount', insert 'paid'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 223 to 238 odered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 239

POWER OF STREET WORKS AUTHORITY TO GRANT CHARGING ORDER

Amendment made: No. 49, in page 213, leave out lines 21 and 22.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 240 to 272 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 273

PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO TRANSFER OF TOLL HIGHWAYS TO HIGHWAYS AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No. 50, in page 246, line 20, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 23.

No. 51, in page 246, line 44, leave out
'subject to the approval of the minister'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 274 to 281 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 282

APPLICATION OF CERTAIN SUMS PAYABLE TO LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES

Amendment made: No. 52, in page 251, line 25, leave out subsection (2).—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 282, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 283 to 293 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 294

COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE RESULTING FROM, AND OFFENCES CONNECTED WITH, EXERCISE OF POWERS OF ENTRY ETC. UNDER SECTION 291 OR 293

Amendment made: No. 53, in page 260, line 12, leave out from 'section' to end of line 15 and insert
'32(9) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (£1, 000 or such other sum as may be fixed by order under section 143(1) of that Act); or'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 295 to 298 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 299

POWER OF HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OR COUNCIL TO REQUIRE INFORMATION AS TO OWNERSHIP OF LAND

Amendment made: No. 54, in page 262, line 32, leave out from 'section' to end of line 35 and insert
'32(9) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (£1, 000 or such other sum as may be fixed by order under section 143(1) of that Act); or'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 300 to 302 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 303

RESTRICTION ON EXERCISE OF POWERS OF LIGHTING AUTHORITIES

Amendment made: No. 55 in page 264, line 17, leave out subsection (3).—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 304 to 306 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 307

RECOVERY OF EXPENSES BY COUNCILS AND HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No. 56 in page 265, line 25, after interest ', insert
'at such reasonable rate as the council may determine'.

No. 57, in page 265, line 33, after 'expenses', insert 'and interest'.

No. 58, in page 265, line 35, after interest ', insert
'on them at such reasonable rate as the authority may determine '.

No. 59, in page 266, line 9, leave out subsection (5).—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 308 to 321 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 322

FORM OF NOTICES ETC.

Amendment made: No. 60, in page 271, line 9, leave out subsections (2) to (4).—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 323 to 330 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 331

FURTHER PROVISION AS TO INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 8 in page 280, line 20, leave out 1952' and insert 1980 '.—[The Solicitor-General.]

No. 9, in page 283, line 1, after Executive ', insert
', the National Freight Corporation (as far as included in this subsection by paragraph 15(b) of Schedule 23 to this Act)'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 332 to 342 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 343 disagreed to.

Clauses 344 to 347 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 348

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 293, line 20, leave out from force 'to the end of line 21 and insert ` on 1st January 1981 '.
It is desired to have the Bill in force by 1 January 1981, and I beg to move accordingly.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 7 agreed to.

Schedule 8

CONSENTS REQUIRED FOR EXECUTION OF CERTAIN WORKS IN STREETS

Amendment made: No. 62, in page 314, line 46, leave out paragraph 4 and insert
4. Where the consent of the Minister is required under this Schedule, any dispute between the Minister whose consent is required and the authority as to whether the Minister's consent is unreasonably withheld or is given subject to reasonable conditions, or whether the removal of anything to the provision of which the consent relates in accordance with any condition of the consent is reasonably required shall be referred to and determined by an arbitrator to be appointed in default of agreement by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 9 to 21 agreed to.

Schedule 22

PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT TO WHICH SECTIONS 290, 296, 314, 340, 341 and 344 OF THIS ACT APPLY

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 337, line 29, leave out from '167', to to 'in line 30 and insert sections 173'.

No. 11, in page 337, line 34, after 188 ', insert to 190, 192 '.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 23

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 338, line 4, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
'1. Section 6(1) and section 7(1) of this Act shall have effect in relation to land acquired by a Minister in connection with a trunk road or, as the case may be, acquired by the Greater London Council in connection with a metropolitan road, under subsection (5) or (6) of section 214 of the Highways Act 1959 (or, in the case of a Minister, under so much of section 13 of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act 1935 as is re-enacted in those subsections) as they have in relation to land so acquired under section 248 of this Act (or, by virtue of paragraph 17 below, under section 22 of the Land Compensation Act 1973).'.

No. 63, in page 341, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (4).

No. 64, in page 344, line 9, leave out
'section 41 of the Comunity Land Act 1975'
and insert
'section 120 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (which re-enacts with modifications section 41 of the Community Land Act 1975)'.

No. 13, in page 345, line 43, at end add—

'References to Magistrates' Courts Act 1980
Until the day appointed for the coming into force of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980—

(a) the references in sections 294(4) and 299(3) of this Act to sections 32(9) and 143(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall be construed respectively as references to sections 28(7) and 61(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977;
(b) the reference in section 331(1) of this Act, in the definition of "petty sessions area", to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall be construed as a reference

to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 24

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 347, line 13, after "(2)", insert "(4)".

No. 22, in page 355, line 11, at end add—

'Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978

In section 3(3) of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 for "the Highways Act 1959" substitute "the Highways Act 1980"."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 25

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 65, in page 357, column 3, leave out lines 15 to 17.

No. 23, in page 357, line 58, at end add—
1980 c. 43, Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. In Schedule 7, paragraph 29.

No. 66, in page 357, line 58, at end add—
1980 c. 00, Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. In Schedule 7, paragraphs 1(2), 2(1), (2)(b), (3) and (4), 3(1), (3) and 5.".—[The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — OPPOSITION PARTIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [7 August],
That the Resolution of the House of 20th March 1975 shall have effect from 1st July 1980 with the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph 2 of that Resolution:
That for the purpose of determining the annual maxima of such assistance the following formula shall apply:
£96250 for each seat won by the party concerned plus £1925 for every 200 votes cast for it at the preceding General Election, provided that the maximum payable to any party shall not exceed £290, 000."—[Mr. St. John-Ste vas.]

Question again proposed,

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: As I was saying at 12 minutes past midnight in the morning of Friday 8 August, Labour Members spend most of their time in Opposition opposing not the Government but each other. I am delighted that in the intervening period of three months, brotherly love has broken out on the Opposition Benches and that at least for this week there is some degree of unity. However, it is incumbent upon one not to be too churlish at this time. I shall therefore not pursue those points today as much as I probably would have done had the debate on 8 August continued into the wee small hours of the night.
I shall try to be brief, but this is an immense subject. I do not think that the House should rush it. Certainly, one of my criticisms of the manner in which the business has so far been considered relates to the attempt to rush it through the House just before the Summer Recess when many hon. Members had disappeared. It is therefore right that the House has a fuller opportunity to debate the matter this afternon.
Before I resume the gist of my remarks, and given the three months that have elapsed since the subject was last debated, it might be helpful if I briefly outline the intention of the motion that was moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment. No doubt he will be back before long. I note that someone will be taking a note of the pearls of wisdom that fall

from our lips. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) will get the notes right, even if he did not get his orders right earlier this afternoon.
The intention of my right hon. Friend's motion is to increase the amount of taxpayers' money devoted to Opposition parties. In his opening remarks on 7 August, my right hon. Friend said:
The effect of the motion is to increase the amounts of financial assistance payable to Opposition parties to assist them in carrying out their parliamentary business".
I should like to explore those remarks further in due course.
At present the amounts payable are £550 for each seat won by the party at the last general election, plus £1·10 for every 200 votes that it received".
There are a number of qualifications which set out whether a party is an Opposition party or not, one of them being that:
In order to qualify, a party must have at least two Members elected to the House".—[Official Report, 7 August 1980, Vol. 990, c. 935.]

Mr. Christopher Murphy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you can assist me and other hon. Members with regard to our procedure this evening. I notice that a number of amendments appear on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden). I should like guidance as to whether those amendments will be called during the course of the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): It may help the hon. Gentleman to know that Mr. Speaker has selected none of them.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that there is no hint of challenge to Mr. Speaker's decision, which Conservative Members honour implicitly, in anything that I say. It may assist those of us who may be minded to table amendments to matters such as this in future if some guidance could be given about the circumstances in which we might be able to table amendments to this sort of motion. A large number of hon. Members have appended their names to these amendments. Perhaps you will give some guidance on this point, because it seems


to be a waste of time if no amendments are to be called.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a matter for Mr. Speaker, and I have no doubt that he will note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not entirely sure what is being got at. Can you confirm that at the end of the debate, as things stand at the moment, there will be only one vote? Can you also confirm that there is nothing which the House can do to enable it to take a vote on some of the amendments that appear on the Order Paper? Although many Conservative Members are in favour of the principle, and would be happy to vote for the motion as amended, they may be faced with the decision to vote against the motion if they are not given the opportunity to vote for the amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put the matter absolutely correctly. There will be only one vote and he must make up his mind on that basis.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: On a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) seems to be having a second bite at the cherry, and I am sure that that is within the rules of order. I was fortunate enough to have caught the eye of the Chair during the debate three months ago. Since that time, I have considered the matter and have come up with several fresh arguments on the question why we should not pass the motion. Shall I be deprived of the opportunity of explaining to the House as why we should not approve this motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is no second bite of the cherry. It is still the same cherry that is being bitten. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has had his opportunity. Such water as flows under the bridge subsequently is something that we cannot do anything about now.

Mr. Murphy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Much as I am concerned to know that we shall not have the benefit of listening to my hon.
Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) once again, I am concerned to know whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be given a second bite of the same cherry. Perhaps you will elucidate on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. I think that there is no doubt about that.

Mr. Michael Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One accepts that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is entitled in this resumed debate to offer some comments. I have great respect for the ability of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) to take correct notes for my right hon. Friend of what is said in the debate. If my right hon. Friend is likely to seek to catch the eye of the Chair at a later stage, I think that it would be proper to adjourn the debate until such time as he is able to be present.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That has never been the practice of the House. The Leader of the House will be present in due course. I am confident that the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) will fully apprise him of any developments that he should know about.

Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House may agree and feel that it is worth while voting for moneys for the Leader of the Opposition and for the Labour Party to have moneys to enable it to carry out its routine work, because it is after all, potentially—although not for a very long time, God willing—the Government of this country. The House may well feel that it is a complete waste of Government money to give any money to the Liberal Party, which is completely irrelevant throughout the country. Is there any way that the House can be enabled to take a vote on the one and then another vote on the other?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not possible in the terms of the Order Paper.

Mr. Lawrence: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are discussing the important issue of providing taxpayers' money, at a time when that money is in extremely short supply, to Opposition parties. What is the point of debating the issue in the absence of


any representative of the Welsh nationalists and of the Irish parties? I see that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is in his place as the representative of the Scottish National Party and that representatives of the Liberal Party are on their Bench in width and strength.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. None of those matters would be for the Chair.

Mr. Proctor: Cherries are not an autumnal fruit. However, I am pleased to return to the cherry or bone that I was gnawing on very nicely until someone came along and took it away. I was genuinely trying to be of assistance to the House. Three months have elapsed since the previous debate took place, on 7 August. I was trying to remind the House of the terms of the Government motion and the nature of the present position. I do that in the knowledge that this is a resumed debate and that presumably my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will speak at the end of the debate and not at its beginning.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Leader of the House of Commons and Minister for the Arts (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): indicated dissent—

Mr. Proctor: My right hon. Friend's reaction from a seated position indicates that he will not speak at the end of the debate. It may be possible for me to speak for a longer time if my right hon. Friend does not intend to go into the details of the Government's recommendation. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in view of my right hon. Friend's indication you will allow me some latitude in reminding the House of what the Government intend.
At present the amounts payable under the resolution of the House of 20 March 1975 allow payments of £550 for each seat won by a party at the previous general election plus £1·10 for every 200 votes that it received. However, a number of qualifications were set down. These relate to whether a political party is a political party and include the qualification that a party must have at least two Members elected to the House as members of the party at the preceding general election. That is rather important because there is in the House the representative of a political party—the hon. Member

for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder)—who is its sole representative.

Mr. Michael Brown: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is completely correct. I cannot think of all the minor parties in the House but I am conscious of the fact that the Social and Democratic Labour Party is represented in the House. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) sought the endorsement of the electors prior to the election taking place as the representative of a certain political party. Obviously many of the electors voted for him because of his strong personality, but many voted for him because of the association that he had with a certain party. I understand that he no longer has that association. Will my hon. Friend address himself to the possibility that minority parties may have representatives elected at a general election that they send to this place as Members of Parliament and who subsequently break away from the party that sent them to Westminster? We have to devise some way of overcoming the rather difficult problem that can arise when a minor party has a successful candidate at a general election who is then for some reason—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman desires to catch my eye at some time to make a contribution, that is another matter. At this stage he should be making an intervention in a speech.

Mr. Proctor: As always, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) for bringing information to my attention. I was not seeking to question the qualifications that have been set down.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) must be allowed to get on.

Mr. Proctor: I was seeking to remind the House of the nature of the qualifications. I hope later to turn to some of the issues and difficulties that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe mentioned. I have mentioned two qualifications—namely, that a party must have at least two Members elected to this place as Members of Parliament at the preceding general election or have one such


Member and have received at least 150, 000 votes at that election.
I represent a constituency that is quite large. I think that it has the third largest electorate in England, Wales and possibly Scotland. There are larger seats in Northern Ireland. At the last general election there were 107, 000 electors in my constituency. I shall be interested to hear from the Government how they foresee 150, 000 votes being cast in a parliamentary constituency for one Member. No doubt there is a quirk in the rules somewhere and perhaps someone will be able to explain that qualification to me. At present I do not understand it.
There is a maximum ceiling that applies to any single party. It was set out by the leader of the House on 7 August and it is contained in the resolution of 20 March 1975. The maximum ceiling or entitlement is £165, 000 as of 1978. The Government are proposing increases and I shall remind the House of what those will amount to over a period.
The resolution of the House on 20 March 1975 was backdated to 1 January 1975.
At that time the amount per seat that each Opposition party could receive, as result of gaining a seat on the previous general election, was £500. On 1 January 1978, in accordance with the resolution of the House, that sum was increased to £550. That was an increase of 10 per cent. The resolution before us will take effect from 1 July 1980 and it will increase the sum of £550 to £962.50. That is an increase of 75 per cent.
The amount per 200 votes cast was fixed at £1. With effect from 1 January 1978, that was increased to £1.10. Again, that is an increase of 10 per cent. In accordance with the resolution before us, that figure of £1.10 will be increased to £1.925 with effect from 1 July 1980. That is an increase of 75 per cent. The maximum figure applies only to the main Opposition party, which is now the Labour Party. On 1 January 1975 the maximum figure was £150,000. On 1 January 1978, that figure was increased to £165,000. Again that is an increase of 10 per cent. According to the Government's resolution, the figure will be set arbitrary and without argument at £290,000. That is an increase of 75·8 percent.

Given our present economic climate, those are sizeable increases.

Mr. Lawrence: In the debate on 7 August, nobody assessed the overall figure that the taxpayers would have to pay to Opposition parties as a result of the votes cast in the general election of May 1979. The public would like to know how much money we intend to vote overall to the Opposition parties at a time of economic stringency, when there has to be no increase in public expenditure for the needy in our society.

Mr. Proctor: That is a very important and helpful comment. To the best of my ability, I shall help the House.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Proctor: I should like to answer one question at a time. I shall give way later. I am not noted for not giving way, especially on such occasions.
I tabled a question to the Leader of the House and his reply was printed in the Official Report for 11 November 1980. I asked for the information that my hon. Friend has inquired about. According to the reply, under present Government proposals the maximum sum payable to the Conservative Party for a full year is nil, because the Conservative Party is in government. The maximum amount for the Labour Party would amount to £290,000. The Liberal Party—which was weightily and heavily represented earlier in the debate, but whose numbers seem to have faded recently—would receive £52,107·83. I am not sure what it will do with the 83p. The maximum available to the Scottish National Party, which is not represented in the debate, would be £6,777·93. Plaid Cymru, which I am sure is eager for its money, would receive £3,199·35. The Ulster Unionist Party would receive £7,261·10 and the Ulster Democratic Unionist Party would receive £3,568·95. Those are not inconsiderable sums. Indeed, given our economic circumstances, those sums are monstrous.

Mr. Beith: rose—

Mr. Marlow: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been so courteous in giving way with such readiness and alacrity. Some minutes ago it was said that an essential qualification for any


political party was that that party should have at least two Members of Parliament in this House, elected by the people of this country. This issue worries and exercises me. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could clarify it. In my view, and that of many others, there is no such thing as a Liberal Party. There is, rather, a collection of individuals—

Mr. Beith: Look who is talking.

Mr. Marlow: Those individuals come from different parts of the country. All of them, in their own way, are all things to all men. It would be absurd for the House to vote money to such an organisation. My hon. Friend has been courteous, kind and clear and I should be grateful if he would clarify that point in the interests of Opposition Members.

Mr. Proctor: I am not inserting any qualification. In 1975, the House approved a resolution. The qualification was inserted in 1978 and will be added to again tonight. It is not my qualification and I do not urge it. My hon. Friend asked me whether two Members of Parliament constitute a political party and whether the House was right, in March 1975, to include that qualification rather than a qualification setting a higher number. I tend to err on the side of my hon. Friend and to agree with him. Like him, I am an individualist. I realise that the Liberal Party is a collection of individuals. Its members say different things in different constituencies at different times, depending on their political purpose. That has been true of members of the Liberal Party, at least since I joined the Young Conservatives in the early 1960s. It was doing that then and it will not change now. I do not expect a leopard to change its spots. However, I do not wish to pursue that line.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman refers to the sums of money available to Opposition parties, but he has made no reference to the amount, which must be between £½ million and £¾ million, that the Conservative Party collected when in Opposition between 1975 and 1979. Is he now going to say that he will give that money back?

Mr. Proctor: There speaks an hon. Gentleman who was not present for the debate on 8 August, when I dealt with that point at some length. The hon.

Gentleman has not had the courtesy even to read the report of that debate. We have come to expect such behaviour from members of the Liberal Party. A cursory look at the debate would have given him the answer that one Parliament does not bind another. I and 80 of my colleagues on these Benches were not Members of on the Conservative Benches were not Members of the Parliament that took the decision in 1975. Had I been an hon. Member at that time, I should have voted against the proposition in 1975 and again in 1978. I said that in the previous debate. A number of my colleagues voted against those motions at the time.

Mr. John Townend: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being present when he started his speech. Am I right in assuming that he is opposed not to all financial help to opposition parties but merely to the excessive rate of increase?

Mr. Proctor: The debate is not on the principle of whether to give aid. As I made clear in the previous debate, I am against giving aid to political parties inside or outside the House. I shall make some suggestions later about how the difficulties of Opposition parties can be alleviated, which may have support from both sides of the House, including the official Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Keith Best: I do not want to break my hon. Friend's continuity of thought. If I may say so, he has done extremely well by giving way on so many occasions. However, I am a little troubled that he is particularly critical of the Liberal Party. I am distressed to see only one member of the Liberal Party seated in a lonely posture. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) appears to be reluctant, no doubt out of courtesy, to defend himself vehemently. I have a suggestion that may assist the hon. Gentleman and those hon. Gentlemen representing the Scottish and Welsh national parties. My hon. Friend has pointed out an anomaly. The main Opposition party would receive £290, 000, but the Welsh nationalist party would receive only a little over £3, 000. That cannot be fair. Members of those parties should be able to deliver as effective an opposition to the Government as the main Opposition party. The main motion by the official Opposition—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already pointed out to another hon. Member that if he wishes to make a speech his time may come. The hon. Gentleman should be making an intervention and not a speech.

Mr. Proctor: As usual, my hon. Friend's observation is interesting, but I do not wish to get involved in the Welsh question. I merely wished to give the House the figures that perhaps the Government should have given.

Mr. Stanbrook: I shall not have the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so perhaps I may be allowed to intervene. With regard to alternative sources of revenue, might it not be possible for Sir Terence Beckett and the CBI to come to the assistance of the official Opposition?

Mr. Proctor: That is an interesting and sensible point. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), the treasurer of the Labour Party, is in his place and not at Centre Point, outside the reception desk of the CBI, with a begging bowl.
Let me draw together the strands of my resumed speech. The money that was taken from 1 January 1978 amounted to £165,000 for the Conservative Party, which was an increase of 10 per cent. What happened to the retail price index between 1975 and 1978? It increased by 58 per cent. In their resolution of 1978, the then Government granted only a 10 per cent. increase. The roles are now reversed. The Government are now setting the maximum at £290,000, which is an increase of 75·8 per cent. The increase in the retail price index over 1978, 1979 and the first part of this year is 41·4 per cent. Those who want an increase in the figures say that there should be an increase because of inflation, but the increase they are asking for is much greater than the increase in the RPI.

Mr. Beith: It is a Government motion.

Mr. Proctor: It is, and I oppose it. I hope that Opposition Members will, too, just as some of my colleagues in the previous Parliament opposed the motions then.

Mr. Michael Brown: When an individual hon. Member votes in the House, he does so according to his conscience. It

may be an indication to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) of the weakness of the Government's case that they have not sought to impose an official Whip.

Mr. Proctor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.

Mr. Alan Clark: We must dispel this rumour immediately. The Whips do not instruct Conservative Members.

Mr. Michael Brown: Of course not. Not at all.

Mr. Clark: Whips merely request the presence of hon. Members.

Mr. Proctor: I am grateful for that intervention by an experienced hon. Member and his correction of two new youngsters. I hope that the two Whips on the Government Front Bench will take note of my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. George Cunningham: I do not want to interrupt the hilarity of the occasion, but the hon. Gentleman referred to the debates that took place in 1975 and 1978 when there were differences of view. There is a marked difference between those debates and this debate. The earlier debates were conducted seriously, with hon. Members making substantive and important points, instead of engaging in a blatant filibuster.

Mr. Proctor: I have not been cautioned by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about filibustering and I take no lessons from the Opposition in that matter. We know the eagerness with which Opposition parties wish to pass the motion. They have a vested interest in it.

Mr. Michael Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Proctor: No. I must get on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I give the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) a little advice? If he wishes to catch the eye of the Chair he is not going the right way about it.

Mr. Proctor: Thank you for your protection. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I shall not need it for the rest of the evening.
Let me take up the intervention of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). He said in our previous debate that he considered the Government's proposal to be modest. In support of that contention, he quoted two of my right hon. Friends, the Members for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) who said that it was a "modest little proposal", and for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), who said that it was a "very modest increase".
The word "modest" seems to roll off the tongue easily when talking about other people's money. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said:
It is time to make this modest increase".—[Official Report, 7 August 1980; Vol. 990, c. 939.]
I looked up the 1975 debate to see what the hon. Gentleman said at that time. He said:
It has been suggested that the cut-off figure of £150, 000 for any one party is a modest figure, given costs these days. That figure would provide for a staff of 50 receiving salaries between £2, 500 and £8, 000 a year, with ratios as between the higher and lower levels which I believe would exist in a well-furnished party office. A staff of 50 for an Opposition party office is grotesquely large and does not merit the word 'modest'."—[Official Report, 20 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 1910.]
There has been a sea change in the hon. Gentleman's attitude, but of course he is now sitting on the Opposition side and he is on the Front Bench rather than the Back Benches.

Mr. George Cunningham: The difference is that in 1975 the House took a decision and when the same matter came up in 1978 I supported the decision taken at that time. That backs up what I said earlier. Differences of view were expressed in 1975 on both sides of the argument, but the House took a decision. It is that decision which we are forwarding a little tonight.

Mr. Proctor: Tonight's debate and that of 7 August are the first opportunities that the House has had to discuss the matter and to touch upon the question of principle and the amounts that are proposed.
In present economic circumstances, the proposed amounts are too much. That is why some of my right hon. and hon. Friends tabled a series of amendments. That was the only way of taking a course that might appeal to a larger number of hon. Members, including, for example, my

hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) who agrees in principle to the giving of public funds to Opposition parties but believes that 75 per cent. increases are excessive.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour Party is financially subservient to the trade union movement to far too great an extent? Does he agree that, if the Government's proposals were accepted, that subservience would be reduced, to the benefit of not only the Labour Party, but the country?

Mr. Proctor: No, because I believe that the funds would be directed to other political purposes. I do not accept my hon. Friend's conclusion, though I accept the point about the dangers that arise from the close link between the Labour Party and the trade union movement.

Mr. Best: Does not the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) exemplify the point that I made earlier about the inherent unfairness of the motion to minor Opposition parties? There is a large amount given to the Labour Party from external sources. That facility is not available to the minor Opposition parties. Does that not reinforce the point that I made earlier?

Mr. Proctor: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for underlining that point.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Conservative Members need some advice. There are now sufficient hon. Members in the House to succeed with a closure motion should you be asked to accept one. I am sure that you would be sympathetic to such a call if it were made at a reasonable hour. In those circumstances, the longer the filibuster continues on the Conservative Benches, the greater will be the denial to the House of a decent debate on an important matter.
Perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will advise the newcomers to this sort of thing that there are better techniques available, if they wish to avoid the consequences of a closure, than filibustering and debasing the argument on a serious matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the advice given by a senior


Member of the House will not be overlooked.

Mr. Proctor: I always take due note of what the treasurer of the Labour Party says. I scour the pages of the media, watch my television screen and listen to the radio with great interest to learn what he has said about the momentous issues facing the country. The official Opposition might not argue so vehemently or protest so strongly if the Labour Party's finances were in rather better order.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Do I understand my hon. Friend correctly? Is he arguing that there is no case on the ground of an increase in the cost of living for an increase of the size suggested, or on the basis of an improvment in productivity, for example? When honest working people are being asked to settle for 6 per cent., why should we give ineffective people 75 per cent?

Mr. Proctor: That is indeed my point. I did not want to put it so brutally.
I was coming to our three or four amendments, which have not been selected by Mr. Speaker. They would limit the 75·8 per cent. increase in the amount of money going from public funds to the major Opposition party to compensate it for increases in its costs, including pay, increases which amount to 41·4 per cent. over the period in question. I and a number of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden), last night tabled the amendments to limit the increase to the 6 per cent. cash limit that applies elsewhere. That limitation seemed to us to be eminently sensible. Some have argued that it is not, because we are comparing apples and pears; they say that the cash limits apply to pay, and that financial assistance to Opposition parties is rather different.
However, I then call in aid Front Bench speakers on both sides of the House, who have gone out of their way in previous debates to make out that this financial assistance goes largely to pay salaries. It is definitely the paying of salaries in the public sector. It seems nonsensical that we can have a limit of 6 per cent. for civil servants, local government officials and workers in the

nationalised industries, but we cannot so limit the public funding of Opposition parties, most of which funding will go on pay in the public sector.

Mr. Beith: This is a serious and important point. Can the hon. Gentleman name one Government Department that is calculating its salaries for 1981 on the basis of a cash limit that was set for 1978? Will he bear in mind that we are talking about amounts that have not been increased since 1978?

Mr. Proctor: There has been a considerable change in the intervening period. That largely answers the hon. Gentleman's point.
I have a loathing for the motion, a loathing that I hope the House has grasped. It is unfortunate that we cannot vote on the amendment. I shall certainly vote against the motion.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Having read the Official Report of the debate on 7 August, I have been tempted into taking part in the debate. I thought that the opposition to the motion was pretty pathetic, and that has been confirmed by the first speech this afternoon. I think that the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) said that he was the second graduate to come here from the University of York. I hope we shall not have many more like him.

Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman may like to know that I am the other hon. Member to represent the University of York, if universities are represented in this House.

Mr. Brown: That is hardly an advertisement for the University of York.
I wish that the hon. Member for Basildon had been less arrogant when he talked about the Labour Party's affairs. He made one or two sneering comments about brotherly love. He might consider the brotherly love that was shown this afternoon between his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). Perhaps because he sits where he does he does not see the loving glances that pass between his right hon. Friends the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the Prime Minister.
The hon. Gentleman made cheap debating points and that does nothing to enhance the prestige of the House when we are considering a serious subject.
I do not accuse anyone of filibustering, of using the techniques that are employed here to achieve certain objectives, but Conservative Members are not very clever politically if they have to spend hours discussing a relatively unimportant matter. We are debating not the principle, but merely the topping up of the amounts involved. They should do more justice to the House and to the real problems that face the country. The best that they can produce are schoolboyish pranks. Perhaps they do not like their right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It is not for me to become involved in the machinations.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a principle settled by one Parliament may not be contradicted by another?

Mr. Brown: Of course it can, but that is not the issue before us. It is up to the hon. Gentleman to use his influence within his party, where presumably brotherly love is to be found everywhere, to have the principle debated again. If he wants that to be done, he should not waste the time of the House by making points about a matter that is not before us.
We are not discussing the principle. There were divisions in the Labour Party about giving money to political parties. I have always been a believer in that. I would go even further, and say that if we want a healthy democracy more money should come into political parties, provided that there is public accountability, which there is not to the same extent over the Tory Party's finances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), who happens to be treasurer of the Labour Party, can make his own comments, but it is a well-known secret that being dependent for so much of our money on trade union sources creates problems for the Labour Party. That is not an anti-trade unionist remark. It is an understanding of the history of this movement. Nevertheless any backers can extract the price for

their backing. That goes for the Conservative—

Mr. John Townend: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain why the Labour Party, over the last two decades, has seemed to be incapable of persuading the ordinary Labour voter to subscribe sufficient money to finance the Labour Party? [Interruption.]

Mr. Brown: I do not like to apply to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for protection. I do not normally need it, but there is a bit of a rabble present this afternoon. I believe that the community, taxpayers or individuals, should finance political parties through public money, provided that there is accountability and it is in the open.
During the debate on 7 August the hon. Member for Basildon asked why public money should be given to unpopular institutions. I am amazed that hon. Members who desperately wanted to come to this place should denigrate those who have been in political life or think it clever to make snide remarks about politicians in general. We do not rate highly in the popularity stakes with the public. It is the schoolboyish attitude of people like the hon. Member for Basildon, in their approach to politics, that downgrades the status of politicians and those who become involved in politics.
There are no doubts in my mind. The principal is right of using public money, through Parliament, to enhance the democratic practices and traditions of this country. I want an improvement in the amounts. New hon. Members have a lot to learn in this place. If some of them are ever in Government they will find that the odds are stacked against Opposition parties unless they have adequate resources. It is part of the health of the democratic structures of this country that money should be made available adequately for the parliamentary purposes of the political parties.

Mr. Keith Wickenden: Following to its logical conclusion the hon. Gentleman's argument that for there to be effective opposition there needs to be funding from State sources, is he saying that since 1975, when funding started, the calibre of opposition has been higher than it was before then?

Mr. Brown: That is a silly question. No one is capable of giving an objective answer. The Conservative Party, when in Opposition, took this money. I have read the proceedings of 7 August. I cannot find any statement by the hon. Member for Basildon that he was speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party and that he was conducting a whip-round to pay the money that was taken under false pretences when the Conservative Party was in Opposition. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did say that he would like the money to be paid back, but I can find no such reference in his speech. He should perhaps clarify the point. Does he wish to intervene? I thought not.
I do not intend to embark on the narrow detailed points about the rate of inflation and who was responsible for it. I am arguing a general principle. Having recognised the need to give financial aid to political parties, we are under some obligation, in fairness, to ensure that adequate funds are made available. I hope that the House will support the motion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before calling anyone else, I should like to inform the House that the motion before us is fairly narrow. It deals with the amount that should be paid. I was not present for the 79 minutes that the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) took over his speech, counting the 25 minutes that he spoke in the previous debate. I must say to the House that this is a fairly narrow issue.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it correct to interpret your advice to the House as meaning that we are not discussing the principle? If that is the position, do I understand, that you are suggesting to the House that we merely address ourselves to the narrow part of the debate dealing with the amount?

Mr. Speaker: There are bound to be references to the principle. That is different from detailed discussion. The House has decided the principle. What we are deciding tonight is the amount.

Mr. Keith Wickenden: I shall not detain the House for 79 minutes.

The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has fairly pointed out that this should have been a serious debate on a serious matter. It is right to remind the House of that. I sat through the whole debate in August and I have listened throughout this afternoon. I sense, apart from the wish of the Government to get their business through the House efficiently, very different reactions on the Opposition Benches from what happened in August and what is happening today. I hope that Opposition Members will not consider my views too critical. I sense, however, a patronising criticism of Conservative Members, who are in some doubt whether these funds should be paid. That is not an entirely fair reaction.
We are entitled—indeed, we are under an obligation—to consider carefully all measures that involve public spending, no matter what the amount. A much more serious and fair reservation has been expressed on behalf of the Liberal Party. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who is not present today but who attended the debate in August, said to me after that debate that he thought Conservative Members had been very unfair because when we were in Opposition we had taken this money. I think that those remarks have also been expressed by the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). I accept that point. It is fair and valid. I would not wish to rely on extenuating circumstances.
I would only say that hon. Members who support my amendment, which you, Mr. Speaker, have not called, were almost exclusively not present when these matters were previously debated. We are debating them, so far as we are concerned, for the first time. I hope that we are entitled to question the principle even though we must meet the criticism of Liberal Members that we took the money. I make no bones about it. If we were to succeed in the aim that I would like to see of cutting off support for all political parties, the only honourable course for the Conservative Party would be to repay the sums of money that it had previously drawn. There can be no argument. It would be proper for us to do so.
On the general principle, I accept the difficulties that Opposition parties—

Mr. Ioan Evans: As well as repaying the money that the Conservative Party received in Opposition, is there not an obligation on the present Prime Minister, who received the money when the Leader of the Opposition, to inform Parliament why it is in order for the Conservative Party in Opposition to find no principle against it and to receive financial help to be an effective Opposition whereas, in this Parliament, when in office, it seeks to deny it to Opposition parties?

Mr. Wickenden: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is not being fair. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, took the funds which were freely given as a result of a resolution of the House. It was proper that she should do that. Now we have a different House. We are entitled to examine all resolutions and to decide whether we agree with them.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We are discussing a Government motion which was moved by a Minister. Accusations of inconsistency cannot be made against the Government. A distinction must be drawn between Front Bench speeches and Back Bench speeches. Even the length of them is a guide.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We can have only one interruption at a time.

Mr. Wickenden: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Speaker. I shall concentrate on numeracy.

Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. Friend agree, in view of the intervention by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), that we would feel that there was a great deal less hypocrisy in the strong desire of the Labour Party for public money if many Tory trade unionists were not forced to pay Labour Party dues through their union levies? If the Labour Party suggested that that should be reversed we should be more sympathetic and regard the remarks by the hon. Member for Aberdare as less hypocritical.

Mr. Wickenden: I do not wish to be embroiled in a party political slanging

match. I have a serious point to make. I do not wish to make party political points at anybody's expense.
I confess to being fairly simplistic in these matters, but I was not aware before I came to the House that Opposition parties were supported by the State. I am certain that my constituents did not know. I am certain that they would not have approved if they had known. Perhaps we have been at fault. Perhaps we should have told them.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is making a serious contribution to the debate. He should realise that even before these funds were granted Opposition parties were aided. The Leader of the Oppisition was paid a salary and provided with a car. Two Opposition Whips were paid salaries and two staff members in the Opposition Whips office were paid out of public funds.

Mr. Wickenden: I have sympathy with the Liberal Party view. The case is valid. If I had my way all the perks would be cut out, but I take a simplistic view.
I do not believe that my constituents are aware that these considerable sums are being expended for the benefit of political parties. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir. W. Clark) said on 7 August that these were not really subsidies to political parties but funds made available to enable parties to conduct research. He said that the funds did not benefit political parties. I cannot accept that view. Until 1975 Opposition parties had to find funds for their research from their own resources. That is the proper way for a party to behave.
The political parties are now relieved of that obligation, whether £150, 000 or £290, 000 is involved. Opposition parties are relieved of drains on their funds. No doubt it will be our turn in due course. If somebody offers to pay my mortgage direct to my building society that is no less a benefit to me because it has not gone into my bank account. That is an exact analogy.
At a time when hospitals are closing, when employees are losing jobs—or accepting low salary increases or none at all—when help for handicapped children, the sick and the aged is being


restricted, it is difficult to justify a 75 per cent. increase in funds for any political party. I have no taste for it. I wish that we could vote out the resolution, but I suspect that that will not happen. I shall vote against the motion knowing that I am saying something on behalf of my constituents who regard this as a dishonourable way of spending public money

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) brought a refreshing seriousness to the debate. I welcome his contribution, although I disagree profoundly with it. He made the honour of his stand by saying that if the Conservative Party were to take the view that all such support for Opposition parties should be ended it had an obligation to repay the State the moneys that it had taken. I am not sure that that view would be welcomed by Lord Thorneycroft and others.
The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should recognise that the principle of supporting the party activities of Opposition parties goes back much further than 1975. It goes back to the recognition that the post of Leader of the Opposition was a salaried one, to the payment of Opposition Whips and staff in their offices. Many such facilities, none of which are for the benefit of the Liberal Party, existed before the funds under discussion were granted.
We are talking about the salaries of people who are paid a great deal less than hon. Members. They have no less a right to fair consideration than those amongst whom the ywork, such as Members' secretaries and staff employed in the House. We are discussing people who work in the Whips' offices and other offices in the House. They work long hours and work hard. They are as entitled to fair consideration as others who work in the building. They have worked under the same cash limits since 1978. The 1978 increase did not compensate for the rate of inflation between 1975 and 1978. To the credit of the Government their motion, which I trust they will support, seeks to remedy that deficiency by ensuring that the assistance available will be similar to that

which was available when it was introduced.
It is not reasonable for hon. Members to seek to prevent reasonable salary increases for such workers. The opposition to the motion can be compared with the attacks that are made periodically on the Civil List. Some hon. Members fail to recognise that some of the people involved earn ordinary domestic wages in the Royal Household, for example. They are just as entitled to fair consideration as anybody else. Government Back Benchers should not be so cavalier in their attitude to employees.
Such hon. Members have only one let-out. They can argue that political parties should increase their fund raising and add to resources in their parliamentary offices to the extent to which Government assistance no longer meets the rate of inflation. However, that comes ill from the richest party in the land, the financial backers of which have always been among the richest in society. It is up to members of that party to decide where to direct their appeal. This is not the occasion to go into the more curious aspects of that, such as writing to people who have been given Government grants.

Mr. John Townend: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a 75 per cent. increase to cover the period between 1978 and 1980 is considerably in excess of the rate of inflation? Is that not another example of one of the problems now facing the country, namely, being hooked on indexation? Other groups, such as the firemen, are being asked to accept 6 per cent. Why should not the employees of political parties accept wage increases of 6 per cent?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is addressing his remarks to a party that believes in an incomes policy. There should have been an incomes policy from the beginning of this Parliament, rather than its being introduced this year. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that tonight's motion goes beyond what is necessary to cater for the increase in inflation since 1978. It remedies more than that by taking us back to the 1975 levels of support. I commend the Government for taking that step.
The hon. Gentleman is not talking about the application of a 6 per cent. Pay


increase. He is talking about the application of 1978 cash limits to 1981. No Government Department in Whitehall has been asked to organise its salaries budget on the basis that it would receive either what it received in 1978 or what it received in 1978 plus 6 per cent. Enormous salary increases have taken place throughout the public service since 1978. More relevant are the salary increases that have taken place within this building during that time—not only hon. Members' salaries but secretaries' salaries—through the increases in the secretarial allowance—and the salaries of the staff of the House on a House of Commons Commission Vote. They received reasonable, and in some cases good, salary increases because of decisions taken by the House. Not allowing any reasonable increase in the funds available to Opposition parties would deny salary increases to those who are entitled to equal consideration.
Conservative Members who made proper and extensive use of the funds for Opposition parties when they were in opposition should recognise that fact, as their Government have done, and should go into the Lobbies with their Government—where I expect to see a good total of Ministers—to ensure that there is some honour and decency in the House. We should not work on the basis that what is good for a party in Opposition is not good for a party when it becomes the Government.
It would be a bad day for the House if we were to set the example tonight that advantages freely taken in Opposition were denied to others when that party became the Government. I hope that not many Conservative Members wish to take that course—

Mr. Donald Coleman: rose in his place and claimed move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: I am not yet prepared to accept the closure. I am conscious that this is a continued debate. I shall bear that fact in mind, but not at this moment.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I am in favour of financial assistance for Opposition parties. It is bad for the country if there is not an alert and well-informed Opposition. It is bad for

the country not to have a good Opposition.
I shall give the House the benefit of my experience when I first entered the House. The Department of the Serjeant at Arms informed me that I could not have a filing cabinet for the first six months. A cabinet was then put into the Gentlemen's Cloakroom, with the result that my secretary could not file my letters. That was not helpful. I had an Adjournment debate on the lack of facilities for Members of Parliament.
I have never pressed for extra payments for Members, but, together with a well-known member of the Liberal Party and a member of the Labour Party, I have lobbied on such matters as not having free postage to write to constituents, not having telephone facilities, and having only a desk and a filing cabinet. I support the aim of providing sufficient secretarial and research help for Opposition parties so that they are able to do their job properly. However, I part company from the Government's motion because of the considerable increase in the amounts to be given.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who spoke for the Liberal Party, said that as people were working side by side with those who receive salary increases and with Members of Parliament whose last salary increase was about 10 per cent.—not 75 per cent.—it would be fair if they received an increase, but 75 per cent. seems to be going too far. I had hoped that one of the amendments would be selected for debate. I should have been happy to vote for the amendment that I signed. We must set an example, as we always have done, with our salaries and with other matters. This is a case where the numbers of staff probably could be cut, even if individuals are paid a proper salary in relation to those alongside whom they work.
To show my disapproval of something that cannot possibly be accepted outside the House—a 75 per cent increase, even if it is spread over a longer period than one year—and as I cannot vote for an amendment, I feel obliged to vote against the motion. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House does not wish to give a further explanation and that he will not speak again tonight. I had hoped that he would. I


was not present—there is no excuse for that—when the matter was debated in August. I should like a little more explanation of why the amount is set at 75 per cent. We should know more about that. The figure is far too high when the country is being asked for sacrifices. I believe that Opposition parties should have full facilities and full back-up research, but the figure of 75 per cent should be cut to about 30 per cent. I am not voting against providing facilities for Opposition parties. I believe in those facilities for myself, for every hon. Member and for each Opposition party, but 75 per cent is far too much to ask our constituents to swallow.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: We are all aware of the so-called ratchet effect in politics. With each turn, we have in recent times moved further and further towards a Socialist approach. I believe, and I am sure that my hon. Friends agree with me, that the Government were elected to stop such a movement and consciously to turn in the opposite direction—hence the disquiet being shown by many of my hon. Friends about the motion before us to increase the finance available to Opposition parties.
We have an opportunity tonight to put the brake on another aspect of the Socialist approach—the printing of more money, parcelling it, and presenting it to designated groups, in this case political parties. The political parties otherwise will become increasingly dependent upon this inflow of cash. The ordinary citizen unwittingly ends up by paying, both through increased taxation and increased inflation. Surely the political parties that would benefit from this increase in finance, whatver their philosophy, become immediately tainted, intentionally or otherwise, by the Socialist approach. The ratchet effect will be seen to produce continual movement in a Leftwards direction if the increases are agreed. I sincerely hope that my hon. Friends will be voting against them tonight.
The Conservative principles on which I fought and won Welwyn and Hatfield lead me, regretfully, to view the acceptance of such political largesse as inappropriate and debilitating. I use the word "regretfully" with care, for I recognise

that the then Conservative Opposition benefited from this finance. However, I believe—and many of my hon. Friends agree with me—that that decision was erroneous, and it is to be fervently hoped that tonight such an error will not be compounded.
In our view, Conservatism is based on freedom and common sense. Common sense surely tells us that to maximise freedom is to minimise dependence upon the State, and that should include a reducing of this golden cord between Government and political parties, with a view to ending it finally.
I believe that we have before us tonight the opportunity to start ending that process, and I sincerely hope that many of my hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby in voting against the motion.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I do not have any objections to the selection of means to ensure that opposition within the House of Commons is effective, for without effective opposition it is highly unlikely that we shall have effective government. But I believe, equally, that having established a principle there is not the slightest reason why that principle has to continue unchanged over a period of time, merely being updated, as it were, according to external circumstances, regardless of the evidence of its effectiveness or otherwise.
There is a great danger that we shall decide this issue—the amount of money paid from public funds to Opposition parties—in the same way as in the past we have tried to justify wage increases. We have said "The cost of living has increased. Therefore, there should be an increase payable to workers in particular activities." It seems to me that that is now generally regarded as erroneous. We no longer think that everyone is automatically entitled to a rise in pay equal to whatever happens to be the rise in the cost of living.
Although it may be that those who serve political parties in this House have to make considerable sacrifices and accept relatively low pay and long hours, they cannot be excluded from acceptance of the fact that no one has an automatic right to be given increases in salary based purely on the external changes in the price level.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) thought that I was being brutal when I made a comment about productivity. It was not intended in that sense at all. What I was attempting to say was that, whether or not we agree with the 6 per cent. limit which is being set on wages in the public sector, it is something that we are all having to discuss and explain.
It is extremely difficult, therefore, for any Member when apparently it is suggested that there should be increases of an amount which can be set at 75 per cent., although I accept absolutely the point already made that we are talking about a percentage related to a base of 1978 and not the present day.
I accept that point, but I believe that we have to sell policies to the public. It is part of our job as Members of Parliament to encourgae people to realise that an efficient House of Commons is to their advantage. I do not believe that it is possible to sell the kinds of figures that are produced by following the formula put forward by the Government in the motion.
I should have much preferred to be able to vote for one of the amendments to which I put my name, but that is not possible, so again one must simply take the view that, if that is so, one must reject the proposal because it is not in line with the general proposals which are being put to the country and to which we are being asked to give our support.
The next argument in favour of increasing the amount payable as a back-up to Opposition parties is on the lines of comparability—that hon. Members' secretaries are having certain payments and, therefore, those who work in the offices of the political parties should have similar payments. Over a period of years we have had arguments based on comparability, but surely we have come to reject it as the basis for deciding remuneration. There is very little comparability between jobs. It is almost impossible to find any two people who are similarly designated and who put the same amount of effort and energy into their work. I suggest, therefore, that the comparability argument is entirely unacceptable.
A further point which has not been touched on previously this evening is the assumption that efficiency will somehow

be brought about by spending more money on a bigger bureaucracy, whether it be for a major party, such as that of the present Government, or a smaller party. I do not accept that spending more money means that one will be more efficient and effective. I have heard no case put forward to suggest that opposition has become more effective since these proposals originated in 1975.
The question was posed earlier—I think that it was treated in a jocular fashion—whether there is any such evidence. I think that there is not. In practice, there is something to be said for encouraging political parties to look to those who serve the party—not so much the House as the party—to recognise that they have a role to play in offering personal service, in making sacrifice and also in offering voluntary service. I find it very difficult to understand why minority parties, which are represented in this House by a handful of Members, cannot use voluntary service to provide the back-up that they require.
Finally, the argument has been advanced that people will be paid badly if there are not public funds available to supplement their salaries. I suggest that it is incumbent on the Opposition parties, whichever they may be at any given time, to pay their staff the proper going rate for the job and to make sure, therefore, that they use the number of staff that they can afford to pay. The staff should be paid properly, but the number and size of the bureaucracy should never be considered as being the measure of the efficiency of the back-up to political parties.
I greatly regret that there will be no way of expressing my feeling that the proposals of the Government are based on a principle that is sound but that the financial terms of the formula are unacceptable. I shall, therefore, have to vote against the motion, trusting that the House will recognise that I have made clear that I am in favour of the principle of supporting Opposition parties.

Mr. Michael Brown: As one who has sat throughout the debate, from the time when it started before the Summer Recess, I have listened to all the arguments that have been made, and I resent the charge levelled early this


afternoon by some hon. Members who were not present when the debate started before the Summer Recess who suggested that those of us who were asking the Government to account for the reasons why they wanted the motion passed were being in some way childish or school-boyish.
You will have observed, Mr. Speaker, that most of us who have spoken with misgivings on the motion have been Members who entered this House in May 1979. While I recognise that the House is being asked tonight to consider not the principle of assistance to Opposition parties but a narrow motion to increase that assistance, I think that it is right for those of us who had no part in the decision in 1975 and the debate in 1978 to indicate to the House that there is a new Parliament, with a very different complexion in terms of hon. Members elected who resent the principle of recourse to the public purse in order to fund Opposition parties.
Had Brigg and Scunthorpe been fortunate enough to have a Conservative Member of Parliament in 1974, and had I been that Member, I would not have voted for the principle in 1975. I shall not dwell at length on the argument about the principle, but when we are discussing the extent to which we increase the support that on a previous occasion the House decided to give to Opposition parties, we are entitled to consider the eventual destination along which this route might take us.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) rightly drew attention to the fact that assistance to political parties was given before 1975. The position of Leader of the Opposition has been recognised in our constitution as an official post, in terms of payment, since 1937, and I do not resent that. We should give the Leader of the Opposition the right to an official car. But if the hon. Gentleman's point was that we should accept the principle of aid to Opposition parties because that aid had already been implicitly accepted in earlier years, when we gave official recognition in terms of salary to the Leader of the Opposition and to certain Opposition Whips, he is on a dangerous road. Where will it end?
The point that we must argue today is that if we agree that it is right and proper, having accepted the principle of providing financial assistance to Opposition parties, to index an increase in the funds for Opposition parties, where will that take us eventually? The local party in my constituency has to sustain a bureaucracy. My agent and my secretary are paid for by the local Conservative association, and they often have to undertake the equivalent of parliamentary constituency work in my constituency. They make arrangements on my behalf, for which my local party pays. They make arrangements for my surgeries and for many of my constituency engagements that I do not consider to be of a political nature, but I do not suggest for one moment that public funds should be given to that area of the Conservative Party's activity in my constituency which relates to carrying out the hon. Member's duty.
Since the salaries of my agent and constituency secretary, which are paid by the local party, have to be raised voluntarily by my political party, whatever the rate of inflation, we have more than a slight amount of cheek when we resort to that cosy device of indexation—which is available to all people, including hon. Members, who are paid from the public purse. Many people in my constituency have had to accept pay increases far lower than the rate of inflation. They are not in the public sector, and they have to take account of the state of the economy and the possible consequences for their future employment of the wage rate that is negotiable.
I object to the principle of bringing forward a motion in the way that this one has been brought forward by the Leader of the House, although he did so in an honourable fashion. One Labour Member suggested that the Government were reneging on a previous decision. I speak as an hon. Member who is behind the Leader of the House. He, as a member of a Shadow Cabinet before, has accepted that from the point of view of the Shadow Cabinet there are duties that need to be carried out by people who assist in the Shadow Cabinet and who assist in the Whips' Office, and he presumably accepts the point made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. But there is a difference in accepting the


principle between those hon. Members who faced the electorate for the first time in May 1979 and the Leader of the House, although I do not wish to suggest that he is being dishonourable.
I have made clear that the majority of Conservative Members who were elected in May 1979 would not have voted for the principle in 1975, but we accept that that position has been taken. However, we have a right to ask the Leader of the House and the House itself to bear in mind that many people in our constituencies and in our local political parties do not have recourse to the simple device of indexation to solve their problems.
My local Conservative association was not very well off in 1975; it had had a bank overdraft for many years. Had it not been for the considerable effort of the local party in raising funds, the association would not have been able to sustain an election campaign that assisted me in promoting my party's views to the people of Brigg and Scunthorpe. My local party had been in Opposition for 40 years, but the driving force was that it had to raise every penny of its own money, and to this day I am proud to defend the policies of the Conservative Government.
My agent rightly expects to receive an increase in her salary, as does her secretary, in the same way as the staff who work in the offices of the Opposition political parties are entitled to expect an increase. But I have to go out into my constituency, persuading Conservative supporters—it is an easy task—of the need to continue to finance my local political party. We are an ingenious Conservative association. It costs approximately £15,000 to run the association. Before the election it cost £10,000, but because there are now duties that devolve upon my agent and secretary that are of a semi-constituency nature, we have to raise £15,000 at a time when I also have to defend the record of my Government. It is an easy record to defend, and I am proud to do so.
I assure the House that money has been flowing into my constituency coffers as it has never flowed before. I am happy to indicate to the House the sort of efforts that we have to make outside the House to raise funds where we do not have the benefit of indexation to pay the legitimate

requirement of my agent for an increase in salary. We are ingenious. We have pie and pea suppers, punch and paté lunches—

Mr. Beith: We all know that.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman says "We all know that", but his party has not done its work out in the sticks and at the grass roots.

Mr. Beith: Yes, it has.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman says that he does go out into the sticks and tries to raise the money.

Mr. Murphy: Will my hon. Friend tell the House the reaction of his constituents, when he attends those important functions, with regard to public expenditure, and whether it is right to be spending more than an increase of 6 per cent?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend anticipates the central theme of my remarks. This is the nub of my argument. My hon. Friend indicated that it was wrong continually to accept the view that the general public must make efforts to restrain their salaries while those of us who are protected in the public sector with the device of indexation can simply jack up our salaries, our staff salaries or the salaries of those who work for opposition parties—even though they work for very long hours.
Therefore, I simply say that before us is a motion that would implement the device of indexation, although that device is against the interests of the present Government's general policies, to restore the position of the salaries of those who work in Opposition parties. I do not accept that the figure of 75 per cent., to which my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) referred, is at all justified in the present economic climate. As we are having to ask steel workers, British Leyland car workers, and those in the private sector, especially the engineering industry, to make sacrifices—as some Members of Parliament expected each other to make sacrifices earlier in the year in respect of our salaries—it is only right and proper that our office staff and the staff of opposition parties should be expected to make a certain sacrifice.
A new ball game was introduced last week, when the Government rightly announced a cash limit of 6 per cent. for


wages and salaries in the public sector and in local government. It is quite proper for that discipline to be accepted by the Opposition parties.
I regret that it will not be possible for me to vote for one of the amendments to which I am a signatory. Therefore, I shall have no option but to vote against the motion.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I understand the arguments of principle against any financing for political parties and against any form of indexation. I prefer to come into the debate at a slightly different tangent, to ask whether it is reasonable to pay £290,000 to a political party and to give some help to small opposition parties. It is about £500 per constituency.
It seems to me that if we are really fussed about the amount of money involved we ought to address ourselves to the back-up to Ministers, where it would be far easier to find the savings that would provide the equivalent sum in the Ministries. I am not arguing that we should necessarily cut the amount spent on back-up to Ministers just because we are putting the money up for Opposition parties. It seems important that the Opposition parties should have reasonable finance available for their parliamentary work. Obviously, it makes more of their funds available for their other political work, but that is something that we must accept. It would have been perfectly reasonable for the Government to bring

forward a motion to raise the limit to £290,000 even if there had been no inflation since the last increase.

Looking at the trend of increased assistance to Members of Parliament and increased assistance towards the way in which we try to discharge our job of controlling the Government, or at least being in a position to frustrate the Government at times, one needs to approach the question of support for political parties, especially Opposition parties, not in a partisan way. I recognise that very few partisan remarks have been made in the debate. The important thing is to ask whether it is reasonable that a certain amount of money should be made available.

In my view, the amount suggested is reasonable. Even if we manage to kill inflation during the next year, I hope that the House of Commons will, in two or three years' time, consider what extra assistance should be provided to political parties, because in general Parliament does not do a good enough job—whether from the point of view of an individual Member of Parliament or from that of organised political parties—in examining what Governments try to do and the ways in which they try to do it. There is a great deal more progress that we can make. A small amount of money for political parties will not make all that much difference. It seems to be a move in the right direction.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 54.

Division No. 498]
AYES
[6.34 p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Cartwright, John
Dubs, Alfred


Allaun, Frank
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)


Alton, David
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Ancram, Michael
Cohen, Stanley
Eadie, Alex


Anderson, Donald
Coleman, Donald
Eastham, Ken


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
English, Michael


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cook, Robin F.
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Ashton, Joe
Corrie, John
Evans, John (Newton)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Cowans, Harry
Ewing, Harry


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Faulds, Andrew


Beith, A. J.
Crowther, J. S.
Fitt, Gerard


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cryer, Bob
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Ford, Ben


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Forrester, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dalyell, Tam
Foster, Derek


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Davidson, Arthur
Foulkes, George


Bryan, Sir Paul
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Buchan, Norman
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Freud, Clement


Butcher, John
Dempsey, James
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dewar, Donald
Gourlay, Harry


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dixon, Donald
Graham, Ted


Cant, R. B.
Dobson, Frank
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Carmichael, Neil
Dormand, Jack
Gray, Hamish


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dorrell, Stephen
Greenway, Harry




Gummer, John Selwyn
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Sever, John


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Martin, Michael (Gl'sgow, Springb'rn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Hardy, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Silverman, Julius


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Maxton, John
Silvester, Fred


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Maynard, Miss Joan
Sims, Roger


Haynes, Frank
Meacher, Michael
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mellor, David
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Hicks, Robert
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Snape, Peter


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Spearing, Nigel


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshaw)
Spriggs, Leslie


Horam, John
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Sproat, Iain


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stallard, A. W.


Howells, Geraint
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Huckfield, Les
Morton, George
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Stott, Roger


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Strang, Gavin


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
O'Halloran, Michael
Straw, Jack


John, Brynmor
O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Temple-Morris, Peter


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Park, George
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Parker, John
Tilley, John


Kerr, Russell
Parris, Matthew
Tinn, James


Kershaw, Anthony
Parry, Robert
Torney, Tom


Knox, David
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Lamble, David
Pavitt, Laurie
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Leadbitter, Ted
Penhaligon, David
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Leighton, Ronald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Watkins, David


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Welsh, Michael


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Race, Reg
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Litherland, Robert
Radice, Giles
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Wigley, Dafydd


Lyell, Nicholas
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Renton, Tim
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Robertson, George
Winnick, David


McElhone, Frank
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Woodall, Alec


McKelvey, William
Rooker, J. W.
Woolmer, Kenneth


MacKenzle, Rt Hon Gregor
Roper, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)



McWilliam, John
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marks, Kenneth
Sandelson, Neville
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. John Stradling Thomas.


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)






NOES


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Banks, Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hordern, Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Kilfedder, James A.
Spence, John


Best, Keith
Knight, Mrs Jill
Sproat, Iain


Blackburn, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stanbrook, Ivor


Bright, Graham
Loveridge, John
Thompson, Donald


Brinton, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
McQuarrie, Albert
Thornton, Malcolm


Budgen, Nick
Marlow, Tony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Moate, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Neale, Gerrard
Ward, John


Cranborne, Viscount
Neubert, Michael
Wheeler, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Page, John (Harrow West)
Wickendon, Keith


Fookes, Miss Janet
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)



Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Pawsey, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glyn, Dr Alan
Porter, Barry
Mr. Christopher Murphy and


Gray, Hamish
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Mr. Den Dover.


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Resolution of the House of 20 March 1975 shall have effect from 1 July 1980 with the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph 2 of that Resolution

That for the purpose of determining the annual maxima of such assistance the following formula shall apply:
£962·50 for each seat won by the party concerned plus £1·925 for every 200 votes cast for it at the preceding General Election, provided that the maximum payable to any party shall not exceed £290,000".

Orders of the Day — PETITION

FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to ask leave to present a petition in the name of the Reverend Maurice Sidney Wainwright and approximately 150 signatories.
The humble petition of lecturers in colleges of further, technical and higher education and others humbly prays that your Honourable House will

1. Make statutory provision to replace sections 43 to 47 of the Education Act 1944;
2. Consolidate the national aims for further and higher education as follows:

Aims of Tertiary Education, Further and Higher.
It shall be the overall aim of full-time and part-time education in all schools, colleges and institutions in receipt of public funds providing education at tertiary stages of further and higher levels to provide a general, social, political and fully liberal education by the inclusion among other things of non-special non-vocational studies in all courses

(a) to form an appropriate background and perspective to any special or vocational studies,
(b) to assist young people to prepare for the responsibilities of citizenship,
(c) to enable young people to develop fully their various aptitudes and capacities, including the practice of arts and crafts and physical recreations,

in and for a better democratic, technological and social world for themselves and for the present and future generations.
3. Arouse public opinion and promote public debate by—amongst other things—
(d) the issue of a new Circular … and the incorporation of that aim in a new Education Act for Tertiary Education.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL TREE WEEK

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton]

Mr. Sidney Chapman: I am delighted to have this opportunity, much earlier than I had dared to hope. to draw the attention of the House to the forthcoming National

Tree Week, which this year takes place from 15 to 23 November, and further, to the urgent need to plant trees both in our towns and in the countryside
Perhaps I should begin by declaring an arboricultural interest. This goes back to when I first arrived in the House and was lucky enough to draw a place in the ballot for Private Member's Bills. That Bill made provisions, among other things to strengthen powers to discourage unnecessary tree felling. Unfortunately the Bill failed through lack of Parliamentary time, which led The Guardian to report the even in its next issue under the succinct heading "Trees Bill Axed."
I am particularly grateful to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) and of many hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I hope that mention of those two hon. Members gives some geographical spread to the importance of what I hope to say.
Having failed din, my legislative intentions, I mounted a campaign to try to persuade the Government to designate 1973 as national tree year. I express thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), then Secretary of State for the Environment, for taking up the challenge and, as only he can, giving it the succinct title, which caught the front headlines of the newspapers, "Plant a tree in 1973."
Following that year, the Government encouraged the setting up of the Tree Council, which consists today of about 25 bodies drawn from major environmental organizations, professional institutes, public and private landowning interests, and very importantly, local authority associations.
In its seven years of increasing activity the Tree Council has had three very distinguished and eminent chairmen. The first was Dame Sylvia Crowe, who at one time was president of the Landscape Institute. I count it as a great honour to have been elected recently an honorary member of that institute. Dame Sylvia was followed by Mr. John Workman, an eminent forester, who at one time was president of the Royal Forestry Society. The current chairman is Mr. Kit Aston, a former mayor of Windsor and Maidenhead and a business man, who has made


tremendous inroads into drawing attention to the importance of tree planting. I pay tribute to them all.
The Tree Council decided that one of its activities should be to draw attention to its work by organising an annual National Tree Week. The next one begins this Saturday. In this connection, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who, when he was a Minister responsible not only for sport but for drought, rain and every other force majeure under the sun, took a particular interest in and had responsibility in the Department of the Environment for trees. He gave active help, encouragement and personal interest to the Tree Council in its formative years, backed, as it then was, by a very modest Government grant. Next year the Tree Council is going fully independent, and it has now become completely self-financing.
I come finally to the right hon. Gentleman's successor. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) as Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who is to reply to the debate.
When talking about tree planting, I wish to differentiate between the forests of Britain and amenity and landscape trees. It is the latter category to which I wish to address my remarks.
The Tree Council has chosen as its theme for tree planting this year planting to commemorate Her Majesty the Queen Mother's eightieth birthday earlier this year, and I know that just short of 200 significant tree-planting events will be taking place in areas all over the country, each planting 80 trees to commemorate each of the Queen Mother's years. There will be many more tree-planting ceremonies. But National Tree Week is really to draw the need to the attention of the public, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will participate in some of these ceremonial tree-planting schemes.
This year's National Tree Week also marks the beginning of a national tree campaign over the next three years. Again, the theme of that triennial campaign is to try to bring home, especially to young people, the importance of our arboricultural heritage and to set out on a very ambitious project to have planted

one tree per head of the population of Britain by the end of 1983.
Right hon. and hon. Members may ask why we need to plant as many as 56 million saplings over the next three years. The answer is quite simple. It is because of the four Ds that are always affecting our tree stock adversely: disease, drought, natural death and new urban development.
We all know about the havoc and ravages wrought by Dutch elm disease. The latest figures that I have show that of an estimated 29 million elms in Britain about two-thirds have already succumbed to the disease. The proportion of deaths of trees due to this disease in Southern Britain is much greater. It appears to be less prevalent in northern Britain, because elm trees are spread around more sparsely. But Dutch elm disease is only one. Beech bark disease is prevalent in many parts of the Chilterns.
It seems almost inconceivable to remember that the summer of 1976 brought about what was probably the most serious drought this century. That resulted in the death of many saplings. It happened at a bad time, perhaps because many of those saplings had been planted during National Tree Year three years before.
It is obvious that trees die in the fullness of time. In addition, many trees are uprooted because of new developments, with the insidious spread of urban land and town development into our countryside.
Too high a proportion of our trees, specially in the countryside, are past their maturity. We should have been planting at a much greater rate over the last few decades. Quite irrespective of the ravages of Dutch elm disease, many of our landscapes will be affected adversely over the coming decade because too many of our trees are too old.
Sadly, we have lost many of our trees, especially in what I describe as the eastern arable counties of England, as a result of modern farming methods. Far too many of our hedgerows have been uprooted, and our hedgerows are the seedbeds of much of our rural tree stock.
It has been calculated that if we are to pass on to future generations a plentiful


supply of trees of amenity value we need to plant six saplings to ensure one mature tree for posterity, because of droughts, disease and developments.
The main purpose of raising this issue on the Adjournment is not to ask my hon. Friend and his Department for money. I have always believed that tree planting is essentially an activity for individuals. It makes a refreshing change for an hon. Member to ask in the House that we should see what we can do to help preserve our arboricultural future rather than ask the Government at local or national level. I must make two possible exceptions, however. The first is that Government Departments, statutory undertakings, public utilities and local authorities have a responsibility where they are the owners of land. I draw special attention to the excellent tree-planting schemes of the Department of Transport in the building of new roads and motorways.
I make only one suggestion to my hon. Friend about looking at the possibility of making direct grants. I believe that we need specific help in the wake of the havoc wrought by Dutch elm disease for what has been called "sanitation felling". I apologise for that phrase, but it is not mine. Perhaps I can explain what sanitation felling is. Where it has been found practical to try to check the spread of Dutch elm disease, some successful schemes have been adopted. Let me give two examples. The town of Brighton, separated as it is from the rest of Sussex by the Downs, has had a successful policy because it has been able to control the amount of infested timber entering the town. It has managed to form a sort of cordon sanitaire and has felled trees in order to stop the spread of this dreaded disease. Another example is the island of Jersey, where 80 per cent. of the trees are elms. After a somewhat belated start, Jersey now has an active policy on sanitation felling.
There is a need to give certain local authorities help to carry out these necessary felling policies where there is a practical opportunity of saving some of their elm trees. I mention the Edinburgh area in particular, as well as some of the eastern counties of Scotland and most of the northern counties of England.
I commend the Forestry Commission, which comes under the aegis of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Minister is my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, who is a former Secretary of State for the Environment. He has had a happy translation for tree lovers. I pay tribute to the work done by the Forestry Commission, particularly with regard to the introduction of new plant health measures. Incidentally, that has been done in association with EEC regulations, so perhaps that is one good thing that has come out of the Community.
In my view, these new plant health measures will minimise the risk of diseases being imported. I should also like to thank the Countryside Commission, which comes under the aegis of the Department of the Environment. It has done sterling work in giving practical and financial help in tree planting schemes, despite the modest sums of money available.
I want principally to take this opportunity to encourage individuals and families to plant trees. I am sure that the Tree Council would want me to offer the following advice: of course, we want people to go out and, if they wish, plant trees in their front or back gardens, but it is important that they should get advice on the right species of tree to be planted, the right place, and the right time.
The right species depends upon the nature of the soil and the amount of pollution in the air. Clearly, some trees, such as the London plane, are more resistant than others. As to the right place, it is vital to find out who owns the land as well as to check on any development proposals that may take place in that area. It would be quite absurd to plant a row of trees by a road only to find that in the next White Paper programme that road was due to be widened. The right time is not as easy as it may sound. Generally, we are at the beginning of the tree-planting season in the autumn, although we should avoid planting during mid-winter, when there is a greater risk of frost, even though the weather in this country is not at all certain. The alternative time for planting is the early spring.
Secondly, individuals and families who are interested in supporting tree planting


should contact one of their local environment groups, such as the local amenity society or the local branches of the Civic Trust or National Trust, both of which are members of the Tree Council. It is essential to have a co-ordinated effort in a village or in the ward of a town rather than sporadic tree planting without any such co-ordination.
Thirdly, people should call upon the abundance of expertise that exists, particularly from local authority departments. If the local authorities do not have the money, or do not consider tree-planting to be of a sufficiently high priority on which to spend money at this time, I am sure that they will use the expertise of their parks departments and managers to give advice to the public. I should like to see a situation whereby people would naturally plant trees—for example, to commemorate anniversaries, birthdays, and happy family events, or in remembrance of people who have passed on.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this subject. My parliamentary interest in trees now goes back 10 years, although I concede that during that time I have been out of the House more than I have been in it. When I was successful in getting the National Tree Year designated I can remember some of my hon. Friends referring to me in the Smoking Room as "the doggies' delight". There was some point to that, because at the time I was also the honorary secretary of the all-party animal welfare group.
Thanks to the Tree Council, I believe that there is a greater public awareness of the need for tree planting. That gives me great personal satisfaction. The Tree Council deserves as much support as possible, and I hope that it gets it in three ways. First, I hope that it will receive the financial help that it deserves in voluntary donations from individuals and industry. Secondly, I hope that it will receive the active help and support of many more members of the public. Thirdly, I hope that it will receive the understanding of central Government and the support of local authorities. It is on that final point that I look forward to my hon. Friend's observations.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Not for the first time, the hon. Member

for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) has performed a service to the House. As a fellow campaigner on various issues, I think that the House would be somewhat poorer if some of us were not allowed to indulge in campaigns of this kind.
I remember hearing the hon. Gentleman speak on this subject more than a decade ago, and I am sure that he has rendered a considerable service by returning to it again tonight. I am glad that he paid tribute to Dame Sylvia Crowe, who has done tremendous work. It was also generous of the hon. Gentleman to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who, as a Minister, took an active interest in these matters, as has the Under-Secretary who is due to reply to the debate tonight. Some of the most beautiful trees in Britain can be found in the Minister's area, although I am not sure whether Glentress and Glen Trool are situated in his constituency or in the area of Kirkcudbrightshire. At any rate, some of the most beautiful trees in the whole of Europe are located in that part of Scotland.
I also pay tribute, as the hon. Gentleman did, to the work of the Countryside Commission. If there are any doubts about the work of the commission, one only has to look at what it has done for tree planting throughout Britain, both in Scotland and England. That tribute also extends to the Scottish Countryside Commission.
No debate on trees would be complete without some reference to the herculean efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), who has led many expeditions to forests in all parts of Britain and has gone to enormous pains to interest his colleagues in forestry in general and in ornamental tree-planting in particular.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) has another Adjournment debate on an important subject. Therefore, I shall be brief and refrain from going on and on.
Bearing in mind the cutbacks that are taking place in public expenditure, what is the Government's assessment of the way in which local authorities have reduced the tree planting that they might otherwise have done? It would be unreasonable to expect any accurate


answer, but there must, surely, be a general impression. My general impression is that tree planting, possibly understandably, has been considered a peripheral activity rather than a central one, and that like so many peripheral and desirable activities it has suffered accordingly. It is a pity that we should go through a decade during which little tree planting is done compared with what should be done.
The age curve of trees should be kept as constant as possible. It is a fact that in areas of new building planting never happens except at the beginning. It seems that we do not get round to it. Planting has to feature in the original plan. I should like a refutation of the general impression, which many of us have, that tree planting has suffered greatly in an era of public expenditure cutbacks. I hope that I shall hear a governmental comment on that in relation to local authorities and new towns. My information from firms such as Scottish Land is that sales of saplings have decreased considerably in the past 18 months. It is my impression from the new town that I represent that many of the plans and expectations that it had three or four years ago have had to be slimmed down or curtailed. I ask for a factual statement.
Having complained about cutbacks, let it be said that some of us are appalled at the amount of vandalism that has been done to newly planted trees. One wonders why in Britain, as opposed to what happens in France, the Federal Republic of Germany and in many other countries—indeed, some countries with a lower per capita income than that of the United Kingdom—such appalling vandalism should be inflicted on sapling trees that are planted in urban areas.
It is easy to state the problem; it is more difficult to know what to do about it. Have the Government any ideas on how vandalism against newly planted trees can be reduced? Having stated the problem, it is easy to wring one's hands. It is another matter to know what to do about it. Has any guidance been given by the Home Office, the Department of the Environment or the Scottish Office? We know that, time and again, trees that are planted in good

faith by councils that are proud of what they have done are vandalised.
A related problem lies in the planting of trees on derelict land. The Secretary of State for the Environment was asked in June what steps he had taken to encourage tree planting and natural vegetation on derelict land in inner city areas. The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services replied that he was seeking to encourage the return to beneficial use of derelict land in inner cities and that, where appropriate, that would include the planting of trees and other natural vegetation. The right hon Gentleman pointed out that the urban programme grant was available to help appropriate cases, especially in partnership and programme authority areas, and that the setting up of land registers would hasten the release of land owned by the public sector.
I think that it is fair to ask the Government to explain their policy on tree planting on derelict land. Those of us who represent old coal and shale areas have been greatly impressed by what local authorities have been able to do, especially in the shale mining areas of the Lothians. It would be wrong to say that nothing has been done. Much depends on the activity of the local officers concerned. It is often a matter of individual enthusiasms, and where there are enthusiasms within councils or among officials a great deal has been done.
It is right to ask for the Government's philosophy on what can be done, even during a time of financial shortage, to further tree planting on derelict land, either for timber or for ornamental reasons. What our ancestors used to achieve is astonishing. I shall have the good fortune this weekend to attend a conference at Ditchley. As some hon. Members will know, Ditchley is in the grounds laid out by Capability Brown. Many of the trees in the great parks go back to the 1740s or 1760s. There has been comparatively little planting since.
As the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said, anyone who is concerned about aboriculture and the landscape of Britain has good reason to be concerned about the age curve. The problems have been compounded by Dutch elm disease. I shall not say much about


that. We in Scotland have been let off comparatively lightly. I know that the authorities have been extremely efficient in taking action at the first sign of Dutch elm disease. It is easier for us in Scotland than it is for those in England because we have fewer elms and, as the hon. Gentleman said, they are spaced further apart. It may be that control is easier. I should not like the debate to go by without paying tribute to the West Lothian district council and a number of other councils that have been extremely alert and vigilant. As soon as a report has been received of tell-tale browning leaves, they have done something about it.
What is the policy on roadside trees? We all know what has happened as a result of the straightening of roads. The A904 used to be a beautiful road, with oaks on both sides. It is the Edinburgh-Bo'ness road. The road has been straightened and the oaks have not been replanted. The main roads are the responsibility of the Scottish Office or the Ministry of Transport. I do not suggest that we should go back to the Napoleonic lines of trees, but we should make some serious effort to initiate more planting in suitable areas. It would, for example, be unwise to plant trees alongside motorways, because of what could happen in 80 years time. We do not want motor vehicles travelling at 70 mph to crash into fallen elms, beeches or oaks. Nevertheless, from the point of view of land management and the beauty of the countryside, a great deal more could be done.
I raise one further issue on tree planting, though it is not strictly within the terms of the debate. Had it been a later debate, I should not have raised it. Anyone who is concerned with tree planting must be concerned with what has happened over Corpach and Fort William. Wood is exported from Scottish ports to Scandinavia, where the wood is made into pulp, and the pulp is then brought back to the United Kingdom. That is hardly a sensible way of doing things.

Mr. Robert Hughes: It would be easier, cheaper and better to do the pulping here.

Mr. Dalyell: It is mad to demand that wood should go from Scottish forests to Scottish ports and acros the sea to Norway and Sweden. The wood is manufactured

and processed in those countries, and returns at an enhanced value. That cannot be good for the British economy. It is dispiriting to those who have worked hard to make such a facility available in the Scottish Highlands.
The amount of unemployment benefit and the industrial grants involved at Corpach and in the For William area should be included in the calculation. In any calculation one must include the amount of unemployment benefit that is paid. That would not be necessary if we were to process our wood. It is legitimate to raise that question, because those interested in trees and tree planting will be concerned about the situation.

Mr. John MacKay: My qualification for speaking in the debate is that my constituency is probably covered with more trees than any other constituency in the United Kingdom. The Minister may say that his is the most covered constituency, but I think that mine will beat his by a few hundred thousand sitka spruce.
I should like to add to the point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about tree planting in urban areas. Recently I was in Ballachulish, where the Scottish Development Agency has done some work, including tree planting on an urban scale. The foresters were most amused at the concentration of saplings. They would never have dreamt of planting trees so close together on the hillsides of Argyll. After we had laughed for a bit, we discovered that the reason, as the hon. Member for West Lothian said, was the vandal factor. The idea is that if trees are planted very thickly even vandals will get tired of knocking them down. I should like to think that the vandal factor will work, but I fear that it will not and that the vandals will come back the next day with renewed energy. Vandalism is a major problem in cities, particularly where young trees are involved.
In my constituency the Forestry Commission has planted many sitka spruce in serried ranks. Most people will realise that although that was done for the best of reasons, it might not have been the best way of tackling the problem. However, there were many reasons for doing it. It was thought that such planting


would be a splendid way of keeping people in the countryside. Unfortunately, that has not been the result. My constituency has a few forest villages, and most of the houses are empty. The Forestry Commission is using those houses as holiday homes.
The people who work in forests are so specialised that outside gangs are employed, for example, to plant. When the Forestry Commission wants to weed or thin the forest, gangs are brought in. Gangs are also brought in to extract. Such gangs come from all over the country, and many of them come from fairly large towns. They are not indigenous. That is one of the major problems facing the Forestry Commission in Argyll. In most of Scotland and in those parts of England with large areas of forest, the scheme has not achieved what we expected in terms of the population.
The agricultural workers remain our best hope of maintaining an indigenous rural population. I do not understand why we cannot integrate forestry and farming, as other countries do. It is imperative that the Government should introduce a scheme in the near future that will integrate forestry and farming. The people of Chipping Barnet do not want to see blanket planting when they come to rural areas. They want to see open countryside as well as tree after tree. Integration is essential.
If a small estate or a large farm does some planting alongside its farm work, it can increase its productivity. My hon. Friend the Minister is a sheep breeder of note, and he knows that that is so. Many estate owners in my constituency planted trees on a portion of their acreage. As a result, capital was released, which enabled them to invest in the agricultural side of their farms. They have thus increased their production of sheepmeat at while using fewer acres. That is important.
I do not expect my hon. Friend to answers my questions, because he probably came armed to answer one debate about tree planting in cities, but, I hope that he will convey to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that we need a policy of general integration for forestry and

farming in the near future. With such a policy, both operations could continue and we should have the trees that we shall undoubtedly need. In addition, it would help to keep people in the countryside. Preferably, the same people will be involved in forestry and farming at different times of the year.

Mr. Robert Atkins: It is with a sense of déja vu that I rise to speak briefly. Before I became a Member of Parliament I witnessed the popularity and adulation achieved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). At that time he represented a constituency in Birmingham and he gained great respect by raising the topic of trees. We all remember the "Plant a tree in '73" campaign, and all that it did for my hon. Friend's political career. Like him, I am an urban animal. When I was a small boy I used to walk through some old woods called Highgate woods, in North London. They are in the care of the corporation of the City of London. I thought then—and I have not changed my mind—that the importance and attraction of those woods should be protected and promoted.
Highgate woods were also in the former borough of Hornsey. You may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that those woods were famous, and the area was known as the garden borough of London. Because of the destruction caused by the war, a councillor encouraged local firms to plant flowers, shrubs and trees on bomb sites and other damaged areas. Those areas became more attractive. An otherwise badly hit urban area was planted with cherry trees and with other trees that flower in the spring and which make the area look very attractive.
Such initiative should be encouraged and continued. I often travel to see friends in Hampshire. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) remind me of that area. The Collingwood oaks are found in that area. They are planted in serried ranks, and are extraordinarily beautiful. They add a new dimension to that part of Hampshire. I applaud the National Tree Council. I hope that National Tree Week will be a success. I have already contributed £25 towards it by buying a tree. I have not been told where the tree will be planted, but I hope that my successors


and those who live in the area in which the tree is planted will thank me for that, if for no other reason. Other hon. Members could also contribute in that way. I should like to encourage them to do so, because not only is tree planting important; the National Tree Council is providing all sorts of materials to make youngsters aware of the way in which trees contribute to society. They hope to make youngsters aware of the variety of trees, and they are giving them pictures, and so on. I heartily applaud these activities, and wish those involved well. I, too, know of roadside trees dying of Dutch elm disease. I am told that replacement trees cannot be planted alongside the road, but must be set back. Land owners, particularly farmers, are not keen to plant trees that will interfere with their fields in a way that trees alongside a road had not done previously. That prevents many trees being planted. I shall be delighted if that information is incorrect. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell me that it is.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet on getting a debate on the subject. We often thank our ancestors for their foresight in planting trees all over the country and for the beauty and enjoyment that they give us. I hope that by raising this subject people will become more aware of the importance of planting trees, for whatever reason—good, bad or indifferent—whenever they get the chance. The more trees, the better it is for society.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) for giving us the opportunity to debate tree planting. He was the originator of the national tree planting year in 1973. I am sure that it must give him considerable satisfaction to realise that the seed that he sowed has grown over the intervening years and that there is now a much wider recognition of the need to plant trees. I am especially pleased that he was able to raise the subject this week. We should heed his words, as many people did in 1973. We should congratulate him on his personal success, which has been supported so generously and effectively by the Tree Council and many other bodies and individuals. He started

it all, and the House should recognise the part that he has played in this achievement.
I have been pleasantly surprised at the geographical spread of the debate. I was naturally glad to have the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) involved, with his great knowledge of the countryside. I thank him for his kind words about the trees in Dumfries, although some, I accept, are in Galloway, and are equally beautiful there. It was pleasant, too, to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay). I know that he probably has more trees in his constituency, but the important point is that our constituencies have a greater percentage of their land mass covered by trees than any other region in the country. I certainly bow to him as he has the tallest tree in the country in his constituency. He also has immense personal knowledge of the countryside. I am also glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) is involved in the debate. He, too, made an important contribution.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for West Lothian mentioned his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). We all know what he has done in what is the longest career in the present House of Commons through his involvement with the Forestry Commission. The country would have been much poorer on many occasions without his intervention to the advantage of the Commission.
The hon. Member for West Lothian posed a difficult question concerning the impact of local authority expenditure cuts on tree planting. I must be honest and frank. I cannot give him an answer now. It is difficult even to give an impression. My Department has done its level best to shelter the environment from what restrictions on expenditure there have been by helping historic houses, national parks and ancient monuments. We have, wherever possible, taken a long-term view, which is imperative with tree planting and the countryside. I hope that local authorities take the same view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet has rightly spoken at length about National Tree Week and the National Tree Campaign, and I am happy to endorse his views. In answer to a


parliamentary question about tree planting in national parks, I replied on 5 June that it was the Government's policy to encourage planting of trees in all suitable places, and that of course includes towns as well as the countryside.
My colleague Lord Bellwin took the opportunity of the debate on 16 April on the Trees (Replanting and Replacing) Bill to set out the Government's views about tree planting. I draw attention in particular to what he said about the advice given to local authorities in Department of the Environment circular 36/78 to develop policies within financial constraints for their own planting and to set an example to private owners. My noble Friend also said that we had no reason to believe that local authorities would award tree planting any lesser priority than heretofore. In mentioning the circular it is right to record that it was initiated by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). I welcome what was said about the right hon. Gentleman's part in the campaign.
Lord Bellwin also pointed out the valuable contributions that can be made by civic societies, county naturalist trusts and other voluntary groups, and urged whole hearted support for the Tree Council's National Tree Campaign, which had been launched the day before.
I endorse what has been said on both sides of the House about the Tree Council. Its chairman and membership have led the campaign enthusiastically and effectively. I also agree with what has been said about voluntary support to the movement, both physical and financial. I make the firm declaration that the Government understand the importance of the issue.
It is also right to commend the Forestry Commission. The chairman, Sir David Montgomery, is a good Scot, as the hon. Member for West Lothian knows. His predecessors have also played their part. Those of use who move about the country are aware that it is becoming more and more evident that the Forestry Commission is opening up our forests—which, after all, belong to us as a nation—for recreation, walking and other forms of enjoyment. In Scotland it is particularly evident. The Forestry Commission has

the message firmly on board that people want to enjoy forests as well as looking at them from afar. There is much greater understanding of the importance of a degree of amenity planting around the conifers, which are bound to be the main weight of commercial planting in Scotland.
I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll said about Forestry Commission planting in his constituency. There has been disappointment over the relative lack of jobs that have resulted from the plantations in the countryside. It is a fact of life that with modern machinery for extracting timber, fewer men are required. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll made an important point. We want to see people living in the countryside to keep it alive rather than travelling long distances by car to work and leaving rural communities relatively denuded.
In discussing the planting of large acreages, we should record the part played by private woodland owners, particularly in variety and amenity planting. The hon. Member for West Lothian was moving rather far from the main issue when he brought in the serious problems at Fort William and generally in the pulping industry. Scottish timber growers have a welcome chance of exporting to Scandinavia, particularly from Leith. However illogical it may seem, it is better than not having the opportunity to fell timber. I certainly take the hon. Gentleman's point on board and I will pass on to the Forestry Commission the comments that should have been directed to it.

Mr. Dalyell: That is all that one can reasonably ask for in such a debate. It would be improper to pursue the subject further. However, will the Minister make sure that other Government Departments take into account the social costs of not processing pulp in the Fort William area? Once social costs are introduced in the Highlands as a whole there may be a different answer to the question of the desirability of processing in this country rather than having wood and pulp transported between this country and Scandinavia.

Mr. Monro: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will have taken all the issues


relating to Fort William into account in his discussions with Cabinet colleagues. It is a major matter and I am certain that the points raised by the hon. Gentleman have not been overlooked.
I was pleased that hon. Members on both sides of the House mentioned the involvement of young people. I know that the tree campaign aims to encourage young people to take an active interest in this work, and I understand that schoolchildren and members of the major youth organisations are taking part in the tree-planting ceremonies this week. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is keenly interested in the promotion of planting and nurture of trees by schoolchildren and I understand that he will be setting out his views in a speech in London later this week.
We must also consider the sad and serious issue of vandalism. A beautiful tree can be cut down in a few seconds by a young person who may not even realise what he is doing. Only by interesting young people, displaying to them the beauty of trees and using our schools to the maximum effect, can we have an impact on the problem. I hope that everyone who has heard the debate or will read what hon. Members have said will do everything possible to bring home to children the importance of seeing the growth of trees as well as the plants.
We must involve individuals of all ages. We need a personal involvement. If everyone could plant a tree in a useful place it would be an immense benefit for the next generation.
As Minister with responsibility for sport I have a particular interest in another aspect of the campaign—the involvement of sports clubs. I note from the Tree Council's recently issued "Trees for Tomorrow" pamphlet that the assistance of playing field committees and sporting clubs is being encouraged. We all know how beautiful many of our cricket fields are as a result of their setting among trees, and I feel sure that many of our playing fields for other sports could be enriched if more trees were to be planted around them. We certainly set a fine example at the national sports centre at Lilleshall, where there are some of the loveliest trees in the Midlands. They are looked after extremely well.
It is right that we should say to the Countryside Commission how pleased we are with the impact that it has made in the tree planting campaign. It has been a front runner in a national sense with its system of grants.
I have been glad to hear that the Tree Council has been co-operating on matters of mutual interest with the Countryside Commission, and it would be useful if I were to draw attention to some of the valuable work which the commission has been undertaking on amenity trees. Tree planting forms a significant element in the landscape conservation being carried out in the commission's new agricultural landscape and demonstration farm projects.
The commission has sponsored a special study into how small farmland woods are managed in order to determine how the present decline in these woodlands could be reversed, and after consultation with the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union it has produced a countryside conservation handbook, consisting of advisory leaflets giving comprehensible guidance to farmers and landowners on such aspects as the planting and after-care of trees and shrubs, hedge management, and dealing with the aftermath of Dutch elm disease. Over the past four or five years it has also provided grant-aid for tree planting schemes, to assist comprehensive local authority programme and to encourage private landowners.
During 1979–80 about £1,400,000 was spent in this way, and I understand that the commission expects to spend a similar amount this financial year. That is a significant sum when one considers that we are talking about amenity trees and not the planting of large forest areas.
While we are discussing the Countryside Commission's work, it would be appropriate for me to refer to hedge conservation. There have been demands to extend the scope of tree preservation order legislation to give protection to hedgerows in addition to trees and woodlands. The commission's conclusion, as set out in its "New Agricultural Landscapes" booklet, was that the conservation of hedgerows was more likely to be achieved by agreement than by compulsion.
To extend controls to hedgerows would place a heavy load on local planning authorities, and in the Government's view that could not be justified. The better approach is by way of advice, encouragement and agreement of the farming community. I referred earlier to some of the work being done by the commission to that end.
Some hon. Members are obviously concerned about planting on motorways and where roads are improved. That is an important aspect and I shall write to the hon. Members concerned. I take a little humble pride in the work that I did as the chairman of the planning committee in Dumfries in the early 1960s on the planting of trees on the A74. They are at last beginning to show how beautiful they will be and some of the autumn tints on the A74 are most attractive.
I should like to see more planting alongside roads. Those of us who drive on motorways know that, while there is planting in some areas, there is none in others. Of course, we must bear in mind the issue of safety, but we want planting to take place at a suitable distance from the roads, and all credit to the authorities that are doing that.
I turn to the direct involvement of the Department of the Environment. The Royal Parks in London are controlled by my Department. Like most of southern England, they have suffered heavily from Dutch elm disease, losing more than 10,000 trees on this account, but they have been carrying out a major replanting programme and are currently planting 3,000–4,000 trees per year, mainly oak, ash, beech, lime, poplar and chestnut.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet produced the catch phrase "the three Ds—the dead, the drought and development". Those of us who come from Scotland could do with a little bit of drought this year, but I accept that the drought had a serious impact, particularly on amenity trees, in 1976.
All hon. Members who have spoken have rightly mentioned Dutch elm disease. The hon. Member for West Lothian spoke particularly about the need for vigilance in Scotland. We have been desperately

concerned because of the scarcity of elms anyway, although there are some in very prominent places. I think that I am right in saying that all the trees in Prince's Street gardens are elms. It is very important that they survive the attack that could come from other parts of the United Kingdom.
Sad though the felling of elms affected by Dutch elm disease has been, there is good news. Through the generosity of the Mitsui company in Japan, we have imported about 10,000 disease-resistant Japanese elms, and they have been distributed to local authorities. Four hundred are being given to the Royal Parks. The first was planted today by Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra at a ceremony in Regents Park.
The Tree Council's theme is, excitingly, the Queen Mother's 80th birthday. I cannot imagine anything more appropriate than that that event should be recalled many years in the future by beautiful trees that have been planted this week and in the coming year.
My Department sponsors research work into various aspects of arboriculture, and that is entirely appropriate. Most of it is carried out by the Forestry Commission.
I am glad that the hon. Member for West Lothian mentioned research into the use of reclaimed colliery spoil heaps and other industrial wasteland. He and I would agree that in some areas of Scotland trees are covering up what were once very unattractive vistas. I hope and believe that the policy of planting on spoil heaps, which have often been substantially reduced in size, will continue.
The Forestry Commission has done a great deal of work on this matter, and has produced a booklet, "The Establishment of Trees on Regraded Colliery Spoil Heaps". The Department has been involved through research by Dr. Reynolds, at Oxford university, into the problem of tree roots and building development. That is another issue that we want to keep an eye on, with an interest both in the trees and in buildings nearby. Research here has been significant.
Hon. Members were primarily concerned about tree planting in urban areas. I have referred to the Countryside Commission, whose work, of course, is in the countryside. There is equally a


need for tree planting in town. I understand that the tree council concentrates its grants in urban areas.
Earlier this year the Professional Institutions Council for Conservation sent me a copy of its booklet entitled "The Green Environment in Urban Areas" and sought my support for its view that there is much scope for more imaginative and extensive planting of trees, shrubs and other greenery in urban areas. In reply I was happy to confirm our support for its main concept that there is a need for a much greater use of trees, grass and other natural features in urban areas. I pointed out to the council, however, that the particular landscape policies and techniques to be adopted are a matter primarily for local authorities, and that I felt that the organisation's constituent members, embracing the local authority associations, the Institute of Landscape Architects and many other such bodies, were ideally placed to implement the ideas put forward in the booklet.
I hope that I have said enough, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, who initiated the debate, to show how important the Government consider the planting of trees for amenity purposes, outwith their interests in forestry policy.
I should like to end by wishing the National Tree Council a very successful future with its National Tree Campaign, its national trees weeks, and the other work that it will be doing in the coming year. I hope that the members of the council will feel in the years to come that all their effort has been worth while. The fact that my hon. Friend has been able to highlight it tonight and that he has been able to launch it again in 1980 after his significant work years ago gives me great pleasure. I wish all concerned great success.

Orders of the Day — CATERING INDUSTRY (FOREIGN WORKERS)

Mr. Neil Carmichael: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise some important human problems. I am pleased that the Minister of State, Home Office can be with us tonight, because we are debating these problems

a day earlier than we had originally expected. I hope that we are not keeping the hon. Gentleman away from some other engagement. At least he may have a slightly better time tomorrow night.
I am concerned about the treatment that we as a nation give to foreign workers in the catering industry and in domestic service. I am not being party political when I say that our attitude, and particularly that of the Home Office, has been highlighted in the press and on television in recent weeks as a result of the deportation of Filipino domestic workers. I shall return to that problem shortly. I stress that their case is only the most obviously inhuman example of an attitude that, for some time, has been creeping into our treatment of minority groups. We appear to use such groups as and when they are required, and then to discard them with little natural justice when their usefulness has passed.
Perhaps for a few moments I might speak about another problem that concerns me, again relating to catering workers and domestic workers. We are using methods of detection and control towards minorities which, if we are not vigilant, could be the justification for similar actions towards everyone in these islands. I have been told of police visiting premises in my constituency and in other parts of the country, arriving without warning and cross-examining all the workers, asking them to produce passports, identity cards and birth certificates. The premises of which I am speaking are mainly restaurants and hotels. There are many restaurants in my constituency owned and staffed by Commonwealth immigrants.
The Minister may think that to describe those visits as "raids" is overdramatic and perhaps headline-seeking, but the matter has been so reported in many newspapers already, and that is how the immigrant communities describe them. I think that it is the only appropriate word.
I am not very concerned about the immediate cost-effectiveness of such raids. The legal maxim that hard cases make bad law applies here. More than that, if we use this example to establish law it will make very dangerous law, not only for some of the immigrants, but for all of us.
I welcomed the Home Secretary's statement in July that the police would be more sensitive in the way in which they tracked down so-called illegal immigrants, but some points must be emphasised to the Minister.
If the police get information that someone has infringed the terms on which he or she has entered the United Kingdom, it is the individual who should be questioned and not all those at his or her place or work who happen to have darker skins than those around. The vast majority of those who will be questioned and sometimes arrested or, euphemistically, "taken away to help the police in their inquiries", will be full citizens of this country who have satisfied stringent standards in order to gain entry.
I would be interested to know how often the police follow up clues received by anonymous letters or telephone calls in other aspects of their work. I would not expect them to spend a great deal of time on this type of information. There is, however, a strong feeling in the immigrant community that anonymous telephone calls and letters, frequently from within the community itself, always result in the police chasing around looking for these individuals. Often, the belief is that the police spend an inordinate amount of time on this work. The Minister should give the matter urgent attention.
I do not want to have to carry an identity card, far less a birth certificate, nor do I believe that this should be necessary for my fellow citizens whose skin happens to be darker. If it were to become accepted practice for newly arrived, first-, second- or sometimes third-generation immigrants, it would not be long before someone was seeking to extend the practice in the pursuit of efficiency and neatness. We have the option of carrying bank cards and credit cards. That is for our own convenience and not anyone else's. I hope that that is how matters will remain.
I should like to turn to the question of the Filipino workers who have been so much in the news recently. They did not come here under the general conditions of the 1971 Act. Their permits were issued under pressure, mainly from the hotel and catering industry, to fill

vacancies in domestic jobs, such as those of chambermaids, porters and cleaners in hotels and restaurants, and, in some cases, the Health Service. A high proportion of the workers who came here under this scheme were Filipinos. As well as those who entered the catering industry, a good number went into hospitals, for which I know the Health Service was grateful. The permits were issued for 12 months but were renewable for four years, after which time permit holders could apply for permanent residence. After the fifth year, some permit holders went back to their own countries.
The trade unions in this country, including my union—the General and Municipal Workers Union—opposed the quota system, believing that this category of permit would lead to exploitation of the holder, who in most cases was unskilled and who would be forced to rely on the good will of his or her employer. Most of those who entered under this scheme were women. The trade unions pointed out—and, unfortunately, have been proved right—that the concept of guest workers is an appalling way of employing people, using them and then discarding them. I hope that Britain never entertains the idea of guest workers, as practised in Germany, Switzerland and other countries on the Continent.
Two requirements of these women, when they were brought here, appear to me contradictory. When the women applied for work permits the Department of Employment said that they should not have any dependent children, that is, children under 16, and should be single. The Home Office visa requirement stated that women coming here should have no accompanying children. I cannot believe, from my contacts over the last 20 years with people whose native tongue is not English, that these requirements are not at the very least confusing. These contradictory points could have occupied two sittings of a House of Commons Committee upstairs, regardless of which party happened to be in power at the time.
The most sinister aspect was that these women were recruited through agencies that demanded large sums of money from them. Many of these women worked long hours in order to send money back


to their families and to help pay the agencies. In many cases they had got into considerable debt trying to get here. Some of the women applied for permission to bring their children here after they had been here for five years. Permission was granted in most cases, until November 1979, when the Claveria case reached the Divisional Court, which declared that the woman concerned had deceived the authorities by not admitting that she had children. After that time, women who had entered under domestic work permits and had fallen foul of this ambiguity were under threat.
A number of points arise from this situation. If the women concerned had genuinely wished to deceive, would they have gone to the Home Office seeking permission to bring their children here? Secondly, in the past the Home Office has allowed women in this position to settle, but is now saying that there must be ministerial discussion before any such person can be allowed to settle. Thirdly, what was the role of the agencies in this situation? I am told by members of my union who have been involved that in many cases the women informed the agency of the true position, that is, whether or not they were married and whether or not they had children. Frequently, the agencies falsified the information, putting down "single" and "childless".
I have heard that in some cases the agencies, so long as they had the money—they had a considerable financial incentive, once they were dealing with a woman with money, to get her sent here—instructed some women not to state that they had a family. The women were instructed to say nothing about children. This was not always possible. Where a woman was sending money home to her children, she was claiming, until 1978, the full child allowance. Many members of my union report that no questions were asked about children either by the agencies or by visa-issuing officers. Many of our members report that the women, having filled in the Home Office forms saying that they were not bringing their children with them, felt that they had answered all the questions that it was necessary to answer.
The courts have made a ruling that appears to me harsh and unsympathetic. It means that people have to answer questions that they did not even know existed. It seems exceedingly unfair that a group of women who entered the country in this way and have worked at jobs that no one else would take, for low wages, are now caught by an ambiguity that they did not even know existed when they first undertook to come to Britain.
I should like to ask the Minister for help. Why have these women been accused of deception and thereby transformed into illegal immigrants only when they have wanted to bring their children to join them? The Government have known of these children for some time, through the Inland Revenue. This is an old bone of contention. Departments are created for the convenience of the Government. There is nothing sacred or special about them. Ordinary citizens, and particularly citizens who have no English—most of these people, I understand, speak Spanish, and certainly came here with no English—believe that when they are dealing with the Inland Revenue or any other Department they are dealing with the Government as a whole. They are perhaps not aware of the sophistication of arrangements in a country such as Britain. They do not differentiate between one branch or another. They felt that they were being honest, and believed that the Government knew that they had children, because they had been claiming, and receiving, tax relief on their children for at least four years.
What is the position of those who were allowed to settle and brought their children to join them, legally, it appears to me, before the Claveria judgment? Only a small number of outstanding cases are involved. Those becoming eligible to settle are among the last to have been able to obtain this type of permit before it was restricted to workers from Western Europe in 1977. The Minister will know better than I how many cases are involved. Given the small number involved, the obvious anomalies in the situation, the fact that the Home Secretary has seen fit to exercise his discretion in about half the cases, and that the loophole that triggered retrospective Government action was closed three years ago, is it too much


to ask the Minister seriously to consider a general amnesty?

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) for raising this issue, not only as it applies to certain women, but in the context of how control is exercised generally—once immigrants are in Britain. My hon. Friend has covered the case of women from the Philippines.
I accept that in many instances the law has been broken unwittingly. The Government claim that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but there is a qualitative difference in the cases under discussion. The problem arises because the agencies did the recruiting. They advised the individuals and were responsible, in most cases, for completing the forms. Each case will probably have to be dealt with on its merits, although an amnesty covering the entire group should not be ruled out. Where there is clear evidence that, for the purposes of exploitation and commercial gain, the agency agencies deliberately broke the law, that should not be held against an individual. The Home Office seems to take the view that responsibility rests upon the individual. I believe that to be wrong. The cases should be dealt with more sympathetically.
I deal next with how immigration control is exercised once people are here. One of the cases that comes to mind is that of Bestway, a supermarket. A number of people were picked up, taken to a police station and held there because they had no documents in their possession to prove that they had a right to be here. Such action and its effect on community relations was well canvassed in Standing Committee B in 1971, when we were discussing the then Immigration Bill. We discussed the matter in relation to aliens and certificates of patriality. The discussions took place during the fifteenth to seventeenth sittings of the Committee. We were given the clear impression by the then Home Office Minister, the late Mr. Sharples, that there would be no question of stopping people at random to check whether they had the right to be in Britain. He made it clear that the police had no power to arrest people simply because they had no documents in their possession.
An amendment was moved to provide that if someone was asked to produce a document stating that he had the right to be here, the police must have a suspicion that a crime had been committed. We argued that if a document had to be produced the person concerned should be able to produce it within seven days. We argued also that there should be no question of a person being detained until he found someone who could produce the documents.
Mr. Sharples said that it was important for the police to discuss with the immigrant communities and other organisations how they would carry out their duties. He said:
However, it is envisaged that the same kind of arrangement should exist as with a driving licence—that if a person is not carrying a passport with him, he should be asked, in cases of doubt, to produce it at a police station within a reasonable time. In my view, that would not be too onerous a procedure."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 May 1971; c. 741.]
I agree that that would not be too onerous a procedure. If that were happening there would be less anxiety about the damage that might be done to community relations.
We canvassed the issue thoroughly. Much to my surprise, the late Mr. Sharples had some kind things to say about a speech that I made on that issue. He said:
May I say, too, that I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I was particularly struck by his words, as reported in col. 785 of the Official Report of our last sitting. He said this: 'What matters is not the strict letter of the law, but its aplication. A law can be perfectly straightforward and reasonable, but if it is pushed beyond the point of reason, pushed to the stage of harassment and persecution, it can lead to all kinds of serious consequences'.
Mr. Sharpies continued:
I do not think anybody in the Committee this morning would disagree with that. I certainly do not. But from the knowledge we have of the people serving in the immigration Department and immigration officers, and the police who will have to bear the responsibility of the detailed administration of the law—partiularly those police officers concerned with community relations—I believe that we can rely upon their good sense and their sense of responsibility to administer the law in the way in which the hon. Gentleman rightly suggests that it would administered."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 May 1971; c. 820.]


I am not challenging the right of the police to ask people to produce documents. When asked, a person should produce a document within a reasonable time. However, if the police have gone beyond acting with reasonable suspicion, and if they are taking out blank warrants and going to factories where they believe there might be illegal immigrants, without having a specific individual in mind, that is contrary to the spirit of the law, and contrary to the assurances that we were given when the legislation was going through this House.
If the police go on "fishing" expeditions and question all the people in a factory, restaurant or shop about whether they have the right to be there, and take to the police station those who cannot produce documents, that is not within the spirit of the law. Although I have not checked thoroughly, I do not believe that regulations exist that give the police power to do that. Such action transgresses the power to arrest and detain because of the non-production of documents.
We live in difficult times. I do not wish to dramatise or exaggerate the situation by suggesting that such action is widespread throughout the country, but it has been happening sufficiently often to cause anxiety. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to clarify how the police should operate. I hope, too, that he will make it clear that the use of blank warrants—that is, taking out warrants and filling them in afterwards in order to make an arrest—is contrary to the law and should not happen.
I ask the Minister to ensure that a circular is sent out to make it clear that there should be no "fishing" expeditions and that people should not be taken to police stations and detained. Although we are at present in a quiet period for community relations, we know that the situation breaks down from time to time. Trouble breaks out because there is serious concern among immigrant communities over the way in which their rights appear to be dwindling away. I hope that we shall receive some assurances from the Minister this evening.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this short debate. Before I turn to my

main point, the question of resident domestic workers and nursing auxiliaries, I wish to make a brief comment on some of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). It appears that increasing demands are being made on people who are not white to produce documentary evidence, either at the request of the police or at the request of potential employers. They may even be required—it is only a threat—to produce identification for National Health Service treatment if the Government seek to expand the method of charging. All those things make people carry their passports with them so as to get rid of the pressures on them, or to prove their identity. Through those practices we have come close to ensuring that people carry their passports around as though they were identity cards.
The Minister is shaking his head. I hope that he will use this opportunity to clarify the position. From talking to black and Asian communities, I find that they feel that pressure is on them and that they must carry with them a means of identifying themselves to the powers that be. That is only marginally away from feeling that they must have some form of identity and that they must carry identity cards with them.
I turn to the question of resident domestic workers and nursing auxiliaries. I appreciate that the Home Office has been under some pressure from a variety of sources. I know that the migrants' action group has been in touch with the Minister, as has the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. Representations have been made by trade unions, a number of Members of Parliament, and others. This issue represents a test of the Government's attitude to race relations and immigration. They have frequently maintained that their policy on immigration is fair. This is an opportunity for them to demonstrate that, and to make it clear that their policy will work fairly.
I maintain that that policy does not work fairly at the moment. We are talking about fewer than 300 people. At least 50 of them have already been removed from Britain by the Home Office. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) said, they came to Britain some years


ago, mainly to work as resident domestics and, in some instances, in the Health Service as nursing auxiliaries. They came mainly from the Philippines, where they were recruited by employment agencies. A disturbing feature is that they came to Britain to work for very low wages. The wages were so low that we could understand why some employers had an incentive—not a very reputable one—to recruit people. The employment agencies also derived financial benefit.
It is an accepted fact that some of the employment agencies based upon the Philippines have been put out of business by the Philippines Government because of the way in which they recruited people. Some employment agencies in Britain were involved also. At the time that these people—mainly women—were recruited it was intended that they should not have any dependent children because they were to 1x employed in living-in jobs, where there would be no accommodation for children. The issue now hangs on the question whether, at the time of entry, those women should have disclosed the fact that they had children.
When most of the women came to Britain it would not have been deemed an illegal entry if they had failed to declare that they had children. The evidence for that is that some of them, having completed four years in approved employment entitling them to resident status, then applied for permission for their children to enter this country, and that was allowed. There is some evidence that he attitude of the Home Office has changed and that it has recently tightened up on its approach to those people.
Will the Minister confirm one point? It has been maintained that the application forms completed by those women included a question about children, but that it concerned only the question whether they were to be accompanied by children, and not whether they had children in Philippines. If the Minister can confirm that that is correct it will clarify one aspect of the matter.
Perhaps the most important fact is based upon a series of court decisions on immigration status. One by one, the decisions have enabled the Home Office to tighten up on that group of people,

although the court decisions themselves are relevant to other immigrants, or potential immigrants. Those court decisions—the Zamir case was the latest in the line—held that a person seeking entry into Britain owed a positive duty of candour to reveal all relevant facts to the immigration authorities, whether or not the person concerned knew at the time that the facts were relevant.
There are four reasons why the Minister should show compassion and discretion in favour of those people who are threatened with eviction from Britain First, some of the employment agencies—many in the Philippines, but some in Britain—were not playing it straight by their clients. There was an element of deception by the employment agencies, and the women were their unfortunate victims.
Secondly, many of those women did not attempt to conceal the fact that they had children. They applied to the Inland Revenue for tax concessions and, on occasions, for entry permits for their children to come to Britain.
Thirdly, the Minister would not be setting a precedent. We are talking about a small number of people—the quota for domestic workers was abolished in December 1979 and therefore the numbers are clearly finite.
Fourthly, on all the facts available it appears that the Home Office is using retroactive measures. It is using reasons that were not relevant or applicable at the time when those women entered Britain. The Home Office is adopting a different attitude from that which it adopted when most of those women entered Britain.
In those circumstances, I hope that the Minister will exercise his discretion on behalf of that small group of unfortunate people. It would be a humane gesture, and one that would be widely welcomed on both sides of the House.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): I first congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) on seizing the opportunity of having the debate this evening. As he knows, he was down for the Adjournment debate tomorrow night and, because of the intricacies of the


procedure of the House, his Adjournment debate tomorrow night would not have taken place. I thought that that would have been an ideal Adjournment debate for a Minister to answer. However, I do not blame the hon. Member for taking this chance to raise questions that are obviously of considerable interest and importance.
I confess that I understood that the debate was to be about the attitude of the Home Office to foreign workers in domestic and catering work, rather than the wider topics that have cropped up during the course of the evening about operations concerned with illegals and overstayers generally. I shall concentrate, therefore, on the question of the foreign domestic and catering workers. But perhaps I ought to say a very brief word about the other topic.
We have a law which governs things such as illegal entry and overstaying, and it would not be right or proper to say to the law enforcement authorities "This is a law that you do not have to enforce." It is a law and, if we decline to enforce it, apart from anything else there would be a very considerable loss of confidence on the part of many members of the public, not only on the part of the host community but on the part of the minorities. They believe that the law is there to be respected, and I would not argue otherwise.
I fully accept—as does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—that in these operations there is a great need for sensitivity. As hon. Members have said already, the Home Secretary has said that these matters are to be received. We have been receiving them in the Home Office, and in conjunction with the police and the immigration service.
I want to make it absolutely clear that we do not condone the use of random searches—or so-called "fishing" raids—and that they are not happening. I want that to be very clearly understood. There is no question of the police or anybody else having the power to pounce on people, to burst in somewhere, without having good reason for so doing. The essential point is that the police have to obtain a warrant.
There has, I know, been some argument as to whether warrants under the

Immigration Act 1971 require to have specific individuals named, or whether it is possible for those warrants to be issued simply on the basis that the police should be able to search premises where there is strong reason for believing that something is going on.
My advice is that it is not necessary to name individuals in such warrants. But the crucial point here is that the magistrate who issues the warrant has to be satisfied. It is not, after all, the case that the policeman can simply go out and say "I have a warrant." He has to go to the magistrate and show that there are very strong and good reasons why a search of some kind or other should be undertaken. That is, in fact, happening.
There has been some argument, as I indicated, about whether, under the 1971 Act, people should have to be named. Our advice is that that is not so.

Mr. James Dempsey: If the police intend to search a house in which there is one of these foreign persons and the police wish to establish the validity of that person's stay in the country, would it not be necessary to name the home of the person that the police want to visit and to search in order to look for the evidence, before any action can be taken?

Mr. Raison: I am not sure whether I have understood the hon. Member's question, but the police certainly have to name the premises. There is no dispute about that.
It has been argued that the police, under the present Administration, are adopting a different policy from that used under the previous Government. There has been some correspondence about this. I want to make it quite clear that it was not the rule under the previous Administration that the police were not allowed to operate except when they had specific named people. They probably operated quite often under the Forgery Act rather than under the Immigration Act 1971. I assure the House that there has not been a change in the overall policy since we came to power, and it is very important that that should be understood.
The other point that I want to make, before turning to the Claveria case, is that it has been suggested by the hon. Members for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) that there now is a feeling abroad that members of the ethnic minorities—the coloured or black population—need to carry passports. I want to refute that absolutely. I see no reason why someone who is lawfully here should think that when he sets out to work or goes out on his pleasure or anything else he has a need to carry a passport. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is very anxious that this whole impression should be dispelled.
I put it to Labour Members—and to members of the public outside—that anyone who goes round saying that people need to carry passports is serving to build up fears which, in my belief, are unnecessary. Whatever Labour Members may think about this Government—they are entitled to be as rude as they like—I hope that they will try to help us to dispel the suggestion that there is a need for members of our ethnic minorities to carry their passports.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I apologise for not having given the Minister notice that I would raise certain specific points on the question of immigration control.
I am not an expert on what happens in the immigrant community. In my part of the country we are insular, partly because of distance. Can the Minister say whether the press and other reports that people were taken from their place of work to a police station because they could not prove their right to be in this country, and that they were held until they could produce their passports, are true? Did that happen? If so, will the Minister discourage it in future? I stressed in my remarks that I did not wish to exaggerate the situation. I want good community relations, but I fear that that sort of action does more harm than anyone who wants to start trouble can ever do to encourage the sort of attitude that the Minister stressed he wished to avoid.

Mr. Raison: In one of the operations that has been discussed, it is true that some of the people who were suspected of having committed immigration offences were taken to police stations for a while,

and they then left to try to find their passports. This is a difficult problem from the point of view of the police, and this is the sort of case that we shall examine in the inquiry that the Home Secretary has called for.
The hon. Member asked why a person who is suspected of an immigration offence should be told to bring his passport to the police station within seven days, or whatever. I can see the force of that argument, and I understand the way in which it was discussed in the House in past years. However, there is a problem here that we cannot completely overcome. If a person is asked to produce his driving licence on those grounds, he will do so. If he does not do so, the police know where to find him and where to chase him up.
The real problem about illegal immigrants or overstayers who may be liable to be removed from the country is that if they do not have the right passports they will not turn up at the police station. That will give the police the tip-off, and the immigrants will be liable to disappear or go to ground. There is a clear practical problem—a problem that crops up in different ways in the whole area of immigration. Ultimately, if a person is an overstayer, in a sense he has nothing to lose by disappearing because if he does reveal that he is an illegal immigrant, it is likely that he will be removed, anyway. We must consider that practical problem.
Nevertheless, in approaching this problem, while the law must be enforced and the public confidence must be upheld, it is important that it should be done in a way that will cause as little friction as possible in community relations.
I turn now to the question of foreign workers in the catering and domestic industries. As hon. Gentlemen have said, this is a matter that has received a good deal of attention in recent months. I would be the last person to deny the difficulty of the problem.
It is useful to have the opportunity this evening to try to explain the Government's position and to try to correct some of the misunderstandings that have arisen.
I shall deal with the cases of women—mostly Filipino—affected by the court's judgment in the Claveria case. But, first,


it may help the House if I explain a little about the system under which people have been allowed to come here from abroad to work. The hon. Member for Kelvin-grove touched on that, and I shall not quarrel with the accuracy of his description.
The control of labour from overseas is exercised through a combination of the work permit scheme, operated by the Department of Employment and the immigration rules, which are the responsibility of my Department. With the exception of people coming for certain special categories of employment, anyone from overseas who wishes to work in the United Kingdom must obtain a work permit before he sets out, and show it to the immigration officer on arrival. Permits are issued by the Department of Employment in respect of a specific job with a specific employer, in accordance with criteria set down by them. In general work permits are now available only for overseas workers holding recognised professional qualifications or having a high degree of skill or experience. An application for a permit will be considered by the Department of Employment only if the vacancy necessarily requires such a worker, and the fact that a suitable candidate is not available here or in the European Community is not of itself sufficient reason for an employer to seek a worker from overseas.
On arrival, a work-permit holder carrying a long-term permit which may be for 12 months is likely to be admitted for that period on condition that he changes employment only with the permission of the Department of Employment. At the end of the initial period of, say, 12 months, the normal practice is to grant an extension of stay—say, for three years—provided the person is still engaged in employment for which the permit was issued or other employment which has been approved by the Department of Employment. After four years in approved employment, the person may apply for settlement, which is likely to be granted provided that he is still in the approved employment. Once settlement is granted, conditions attached to his stay are cancelled and the person concerned is free to take any employment. The four-year period recognises that it is neither humane nor practical to try to keep people on strings indefinitely.

Mr. Ron Brown: The Minister has gone on at great length in explaining the Government's position. I respect his viewpoint, while disagreeing with it entirely. While we speak about the general case, clearly we must also respect the individual case. Many individuals have, unfortunately, been trapped by legislation, or interpretations of legislation, over the years. That is the reason for our concern tonight.
Being a representative of part of Scotland, I come into contact with immigrants, although quite rarely. One of them is Norma Bernardo, a girl who came here in 1976 and who worked extremely hard. She was advised initially how to fill in a work permit application and was advised how to work in this country and to be the ideal employee. Indeed, she has been, and no one can criticise her for that.
On our part, we must also recognise that many such individuals, be it Norma Bernardo or anyone else, do not always understand the English language. That is fairly obvious from this debate. When one is speaking about foreign nationals, one must allow them a certain leeway. They have not committed any crime, in my view. We are speaking about human beings, and that is often forgotten. They are human beings who wish to work, who wish to stay here and who wish to marry. That is certainly true of Norma Bernardo.
One can say many things on this subject. Norma is awaiting a divorce which is going through the Scottish courts.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order.

Mr. Brown: Perhaps I may just say this.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brown: We have given certain hospitality to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Brown: Let us give hospitality to a girl coming from the Philippines.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brown: That is my point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must realise that, if a Minister gives way, he should make only a brief intervention.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman said that I had explained my position, but I had not started to explain my position on this matter. I was trying to set the background. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman did not raise this matter during the debate itself. After all, there was no time limit on the debate, at least until 10 o'clock. As he knows, he will be coming to see me tomorrow to talk about this particular case. I think that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it now. I shall discuss the matter when he sees me tomorrow.
The debate tonight is concerned with domestic and catering workers. I should emphasise that the Home Office has no special policy directed at those in domestic and catering work. They, like others, are welcome provided they enter in accordance with the immigration rules and keep within the law while here.
Until the beginning of this year quotas were made available by the Department of Employment for unskilled people to come here for domestic and catering work. This Government have ended these quotas altogether. I am sure that this is right. The importation of cheap foreign labour is not in the long-term interests of this country. If we want floors scrubbed or dishes washed, we really ought to pay the rate for the job to persuade people resident here to do it, use machines, or do it ourselves. That applies particularly at a time of relatively high unemployment.
That, therefore, is the position regarding those who come here lawfully for employment. But there have, of course, been people who have taken work in breach of the immigration regulations, and it is largely those to whom hon. Members have referred tonight.
Illegal workers fall into two main types. First, there are those who entered lawfully and then took work in breach of their conditions of admission, very often overstaying as well for good measure; and, secondly, those whose entry itself was illegal. The Filipino cases fall into the second category—those whose entry itself was illegal. A succession of court rulings has established that if a person gains entry by deception, the deception vitiates the initial leave to enter and any subsequent permission to remain based upon it. The situation is as though no leave to enter had been given.
Under the Department of Employment's criteria, work permits for resident domestic employment have not been issued for many years to people known to have dependent children. Deception about children was, therefore, fundamental to the obtaining of the permit and of leave to enter. If the existence of the children had been known, the work permit and leave to enter would have been bound to have been refused. This was confirmed by the Divisional Court in November 1979 in the Claveria case.
Mrs. Claveria obtained a work permit for domestic employment by representing that she had no children, when in fact she had three. She was admitted to this country in 1973 and granted indefinite leave to remain four years later. Her deception came to light the following year, in 1978, when her husband attempted to join her here and was refused entry. She was finally removed as an illegal entrant last March. We know of over 250 similar cases, most of which involve Filipino women.
The particular points which hon. Members have put forward tonight on behalf of these women have been made to us a number of times before and we have considered them most carefully.
The hon. Member for Kelvingrove suggested that the women were the innocent victims of unscrupulous recruiting agents in the Philippines who filled in the work permit applications on their behalf and omitted to disclose that they had children. In law, the point is irrelevant. As I said, the courts have held that entry by deception is illegal even if the misrepresentation was effected without the person's knowledge.
We have not simply rested on the narrow legal position but have looked into the question whether the women were aware that untruths were being told.
Much has been said about the employment agencies. I do not seek to defend them generally. I do not argue that all of them have behaved scrupulously—quite the opposite. However, I have been told by some of the agents or employers, who between them dealt with a good number of these applications, that they went to considerable lengths to explain the requirements. They feel that they are being unfairly accused of sharp practice. That is fair in those cases.
The work permit application was only the first hurdle. The work permits were filled in, by and large, by agents or employers. Therefore, there was the theoretical possibility that the women concerned did not know what was going on. But there was a second hurdle. As Filipinos, the women had to obtain visas by filling in application forms which required information about their marital status and children.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Battersea, South, I recognise that there is some doubt whether the visa application form in use between 1973 and 1976 required the disclosure of children who were not to accompany the applicant. We are looking closely at cases in which there is doubt about the extent to which the persons concerned were parties to the deception. But visa officers were specifically instructed to ask applicants whether they had children and to refuse applications if they had. So, in addition to the forms, there was a specific instruction to visa officers as well.
It is also clear from the interviews that we have had with the women that in many cases they knew about the deception. I have no doubt at all on that point. I suspect that in many cases there would also have been word-of-mouth knowledge that anyone with dependent children would be ineligible to come.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Deliberate deception is one thing, but is it possible under these legal rulings for a person to be adjudged guilty of deception for not answering questions which he or she was not asked?

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me. His point is perhaps relevant to arguments about the Zamir case and the Mangoo Khan case, but I do not think that it has any great relevance to the Claveria case, and I do not think it would be possible for me to open up the whole argument. I must stick to these Claveria or Filipino cases.
Let me come to our decisions. The House has recognised for a long time that it is normal policy to remove illegal entrants unless there are substantial compassionate reasons for allowing them to remain exceptionally. This is essential if an effective immigration control is to be maintained. It would be quite wrong for the Home Office to ignore rulings

of the courts which had a bearing on the control, and it would be manifestly unfair to all those who had pursued their applications honestly, and failed, if we allowed all those who deceived to benefit from their deception by gaining permanent residence here, with the right to bring in their dependants.
The women are not being punished, prosecuted or deprived of any financial benefits they may have gained by working here. They are being required to go home to their own country and to their own families—to go back to the situations in which they would have been if the deception had not happened.
I realise that the consequences are likely to be hard for many of these women and their families. I recognise that they have mostly shown themselves to be hard working and to have been motivated by a desire to escape from poverty and to do the best they could for themselves and their families. But it is an inescapable fact that immigration control involves keeping out many hardworking, similarly motivated people from poor countries. It is not pleasant to say "No", but we have to operate the system fairly and not allow the impression to emerge that those who succeed in deceiving the control will be allowed to prosper.
The position in each case is being examined closely at a senior level to see whether they are genuine compelling reasons for exceptional treatment. Of course, many of the cases go before Ministers—they come mainly to me. Where there are good reasons, the woman is allowed to remain, as will also occur if we have pledged public faith, for example, by granting leave to remain or settlement in the knowledge that the woman has dependent children. If the decision is that a women must be removed, she has a right of appeal from abroad to the independent appellate authority.
It is argued that we have been operating a form of retrospective legislation—that, when the Filipinos arrived, the law was not seen as meaning that if they came by deception they should be regarded as illegal entrants. It is said that the Claveria and other judgments changed the law. It is also said that the fact that the deception came to light only when the people concerned applied to


bring in their dependants showed that they did not know that they were in breach of the law.
I do not deny that the interpretation of the law has been clarified or developed by the courts over time; but that is not the same as saying that the law has been retrospective. Moreover, I do not think that it is for Ministers to pass judgment on the way in which the courts have interpreted the law; and, of course, in the Zamir case, the House of Lords has ruled categorically that deception constitutes illegal entry.
It has also been put to us that the numbers concerned in these cases are limited—that the problem is finite. Well, of course, it is in a sense finite, in that work permits for this category are no longer given. But it could be the case—I hope that it is not—that substantially more than the 200-odd that we know about entered by deception; and it is also the case that in immigration terms the numbers of dependants who could come in would be considerable—for we have taken the view that, if the Filipinos were allowed to stay, it would be unacceptable to refuse entry to their dependent children. So the potential problem could be significantly larger than some suggest. The figures show that where

there are genuine compassionate circumstances, exceptions have been made. Of the cases finally decided so far, 65 women have gone, while 93 have been allowed to remain. Another 100 cases are known to be outstanding.
I cannot predict what the outcome of these latter cases will be, but I suggest that the figures so far show that we are going a good way to meet the essence of early-day motion 837, which was tabled on 28 July and which reads:
That this House urges the Secretary of State for the Home Department to continue to exercise his discretion and to do so more widely in order to allow the limited number of workers, chiefly women from the Philippines, who have worked in the United Kingdom for many years as resident domestics and are now held to be illegal entrants because they had dependent children at the time their permits were issued, to remain on compassionate grounds.
I think that I have demonstrated that we are exercising our discretion and are doing so widely, which is what the motion asked us to do. I am afraid that we cannot agree that there should be a total amnesty for those whose entry by deception has been ruled illegal by the courts.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Nine o'clock.